Kamala Harris’ Dishonest Campaign To Destroy Backpage.com

Kamala_Main

Before Senator and former California Attorney General Kamala Harris was chosen as Joe Biden’s running mate in the 2020 election, she played a role in a campaign to force a website called Backpage.com to stop operating on the grounds that it was used to facilitate sex trafficking.

“Backpage.com needs to shut itself down, when it has created as its business model the profiting off of selling human beings and the purchase of human beings,” Harris said at a 2012 press conference.

She would go on to spread misinformation about the site and its co-founders, Michael Lacey and James Larkin, and she co-filed criminal charges that were quickly dismissed but succeeded at garnering headlines and photo ops that raised her political profile. In reality, Backpage.com had become a powerful tool for law enforcement to help catch sex traffickers because of the cooperation and commitment of the site’s founders to that cause, whom Harris and many other states’ attorneys general had painted as villains.

Reason‘s Elizabeth Nolan-Brown revealed secret Justice Department memos showing prosecutors spent years trying to build a child sex trafficking case against Backpage but failed “to uncover compelling evidence of criminal intent or a pattern of reckless conduct regarding minors.” Instead, Justice Department officials found Backpage was “remarkably responsive” to law enforcement requests and proactively sent ads containing minors to authorities 

The memos revealed a story that didn’t match the characterization that Harris and other politicians, attorneys general, and activists had been pushing for years.

This is an excerpt from a longer documentary, available here.

Produced by Paul Detrick.

Sen. Kamala Harris at podium and microphone: CARLOS BARRIA/REUTERS/Newscom; Harris campaigning: Howard Lipin/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Harris walking: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Lacey and Larkin in the courtroom: Hector Amezcua/TNS/Newscom; Harris on election night: ARMANDO ARORIZO/EFE/Newscom; Backpage screen: ZUMA Press/Newscom; Photos of Sacramento courtroom: Hector Amezcua/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Harris: Hector Amezcua/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Harris in the elevator: Jonathan Ernst/REUTERS/Newscom; Harris at the podium: MARIO ANZUONI/REUTERS/Newscom; Harris; Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3l2cPbI
via IFTTT

Kamala Harris’ Dishonest Campaign To Destroy Backpage.com

Kamala_Main

Before Senator and former California Attorney General Kamala Harris was chosen as Joe Biden’s running mate in the 2020 election, she played a role in a campaign to force a website called Backpage.com to stop operating on the grounds that it was used to facilitate sex trafficking.

“Backpage.com needs to shut itself down, when it has created as its business model the profiting off of selling human beings and the purchase of human beings,” Harris said at a 2012 press conference.

She would go on to spread misinformation about the site and its co-founders, Michael Lacey and James Larkin, and she co-filed criminal charges that were quickly dismissed but succeeded at garnering headlines and photo ops that raised her political profile. In reality, Backpage.com had become a powerful tool for law enforcement to help catch sex traffickers because of the cooperation and commitment of the site’s founders to that cause, whom Harris and many other states’ attorneys general had painted as villains.

Reason‘s Elizabeth Nolan-Brown revealed secret Justice Department memos showing prosecutors spent years trying to build a child sex trafficking case against Backpage but failed “to uncover compelling evidence of criminal intent or a pattern of reckless conduct regarding minors.” Instead, Justice Department officials found Backpage was “remarkably responsive” to law enforcement requests and proactively sent ads containing minors to authorities 

The memos revealed a story that didn’t match the characterization that Harris and other politicians, attorneys general, and activists had been pushing for years.

This is an excerpt from a longer documentary, available here.

Produced by Paul Detrick.

Sen. Kamala Harris at podium and microphone: CARLOS BARRIA/REUTERS/Newscom; Harris campaigning: Howard Lipin/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Harris walking: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Lacey and Larkin in the courtroom: Hector Amezcua/TNS/Newscom; Harris on election night: ARMANDO ARORIZO/EFE/Newscom; Backpage screen: ZUMA Press/Newscom; Photos of Sacramento courtroom: Hector Amezcua/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Harris: Hector Amezcua/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Harris in the elevator: Jonathan Ernst/REUTERS/Newscom; Harris at the podium: MARIO ANZUONI/REUTERS/Newscom; Harris; Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3l2cPbI
via IFTTT

Kamala Night at the DNC: The Party Anoints Harris and Brags About Biden’s Crime Bill

sipaphotosten976351(1)

Crowning Kamala Harris. Former President Barack Obama stole the show on the third night of the Democratic National Convention, reminding Americans that while his words might sometimes be empty, he is very, very good at delivering them. Obama was initially supposed to offer the night’s closing speech after Vice Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris talked, but the former president chose to speak before Harris as a symbolic “passing the torch” gesture. The media and the Democratic base have been eating it up.

“It’s Kamala’s party now,” declared Politico.

Hold on tight—with Harris’ history of flip-flopping to suit voter moods, it’s going to be a bumpy and unpredictable ride.

As it stands, Harris is currently painting herself as a criminal justice reformer. Last night, a voiceover introducing Harris even described her as having fought “to end mass incarceration.”

That would be news to the countless Californians she fought to lock up or keep locked up. As we noted last year, Harris’s record as a “progressive prosecutor” is one of continually cracking down harder on “quality of life crimes” like drug use, prostitution, and truancy.

Criminal justice confusion

Overall, Democrats seem confused about which way they want to go on law and order issues.

The 2020 convention has seen some nods to “racial justice,” policing, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Black Lives Matter, but only in a prop sort of way. There’s been no substantive talk on criminal justice policy and policing reform, and no indication that a Biden-Harris administration would be anything different than business as usual on that front. Even as Democrats make nods to change, Harris, Biden, and other prominent party members speak of new arrest and incarceration regimes they want to put in place—for guns, for speech, for sex, and more.

Out of one side of their mouths, they talk of ending racist and discriminatory policing and our over-reliance on jails and prisons to solve social problems—and almost certainly would support some minor but still important reforms on this front. But out of the other side of their mouths, they push policies that would lead to more surveillance, more legal tools to use against Americans, more ways to extract fines from people and cage them, more reason for contact between law enforcement and those they’re policing, and more opportunities for violence, abuse, and targeted harassment of ethnic, racial, religious, and sexual minorities, and others who historically have borne the brunt of U.S. criminal law.

(The quintessential example of this is how anti-“hate crime” statutes are now being used to escalate punishments against people who commit an offense against police or their property, even inadvertently, or vandalize something with an anti-police message.)

Joe Biden and the Violence Against women Act

During Wednesday’s night’s DNC proceedings, various voiceovers and speakers mentioned Joe Biden’s role in the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—widely considered one of the biggest policy disasters in modern U.S. history and a huge driver of our country’s mass incarceration problem. Of course, they didn’t mention the crime bill by name, just one specific part of it: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). But despite its nice-sounding intentions, several aspects of the VAWA were just as problematic as the rest of the cursed legislation.

Along with the Jacob Wetterling Act, a component of the ’94 crime bill that required the creation of sex offender registries, the VAWA “laid the foundation of the current, overwhelmingly carceral—and increasingly overwrought—response to sexual violence,” write Judith Levine and Erica Meiners in their new book, The Feminist and the Sex Offender. It “answered feminist demands for more law enforcement but ignored their pleas for more services for survivors, funding the former over the latter two to one,” and “married anti-violence feminists to the violent state.”

Among VAWA’s “chief provisions were mandatory arrest in domestic violence situations—including dual arrests if the cops couldn’t figure out who the aggressor was—and ‘no drop’ prosecution, which prohibited the alleged victim from retracting charges,” they point out. “In some jurisdictions, the district attorney began to subpoena women to testify against their partners or jails them until they comply. By 2013, a Queens, New York, prosecutor told Time magazine that less than a quarter of victims cooperated. Moreover, child protective services sometimes charge mothers with neglect or ‘failure to supervise’ for allowing the children to witness their mother’s abuse.”

Before domestic-violence specific bills came into fashion in the 1980s and ’90s, people who abused their spouses and partners were simply arrested and prosecuted under general battery and assault laws. There was probably room for improvement (though the idea that sexist cops simply didn’t care is way overblown). But the need to Do! Something!—driven by faulty research, well-funded feminist campaigners, and a whole lot of moral panic—led to massive new interventions in people’s lives even when they didn’t want it and to more abuse victims being arrested and jailed along with their abusers. There’s also strong evidence that policies promulgated by VAWA were likely to lead to more abuse, especially for already disadvantaged groups.

(Aya Gruber’s new book, The Feminist War on Crime, is a great place to read more about all this. I also plan to write about the failures of the VAWA in more detail at Reason very soon.)

Biden’s heart was probably in the right place here. But like so many “helpful” ’90s crime laws, his policies ended up putting more people in danger and shuffled more Americans into the state’s web of surveillance and control. And while the VAWA may make Democrats feel all warm and fuzzy, their choice to repeatedly highlight it (not just last night but as part of Biden’s whole campaign) shows neither Biden nor the rest of them have learned much since the 1990s.

powerful Pandering and—Perhaps—a Small signal of positive change

Joe Biden, Protector of Women fits in well with the general theme of last night’s spectacle, which was full of generic odes to the Power of Women while simultaneously portraying the government as their necessary and true protector.

Speakers including Harris highlighted how hard U.S. women had to fight to be allowed to vote (codified in the 19th Amendment 100 years ago this week) and ways in which the government—long ago and still today—have been the biggest oppressors of women and minorities. I guess the DNC expects us to believe Biden-Harris will be the exception. But we’ve seen no indication of that from their long political pasts.

In any event, last night’s DNC—which was hosted by actress Kerry Washington and included speeches from Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.)—was thin on substance but rife with generic pandering to women. But a few moments of non-schmaltz did manage to eek through, including heartfelt videos featuring children and families caught up in Trump’s crackdown on immigrants.

Of course, Democrats, including the Obama administration, have a lot to answer for on immigration policy, too—and the DNC immigration videos were also a reminder of this. One featured 11-year-old Estela, whose mom was deported in 2018, reading a letter to Trump. But Estela’s mom “was first deported during the Clinton administration, then flagged for deportation again under the Obama-Biden administration,” notes the Washington Times.

But maybe, just maybe, the Trump administration’s unending exposure of our immigration system’s horrors and progressives’ growing concern about them could actually lead to growth here.

“The issue where it was apparent Democrats have come the farthest in four years was immigration—the policy area that might be least hospitable to abstractions after four years of Donald Trump,” notes Slate.


QUICK HITS

Politics 2020:

• “The 2020 election represents an ongoing demonstration that America’s governing apparatus is trapped in the embrace of the rotting corpses of once-dynamic political organizations,” writes J.D. Tuccille. “Democratic and Republican Party hearts and minds may have died, but they refuse to loosen their grip on political office—and on voters.”

• Jeb Bush wants the president to “kick Q’anon supporters’ butts.”

• Here’s what Trump had to say about the sex-trafficking conspiracy theorists:

• A number of anarchist pages and accounts were reportedly kicked off Facebook yesterday:

• Facebook is also cracking down on Q-Anon accounts.

• For Reason TV, Qinling Li talks to transgender activists fighting for sex work decriminalization in Washington, D.C., and New York City.

• School reopening decisions are being driven by teachers unions and politics, not public health, writes Reason‘s Corey A. Deangelis.

• An appeals court said Florida can’t use secret surveillance recordings against Patriots owner Robert Kraft and other workers and customers caught up in 2019 massage parlor prostitution stings.

• Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty casts doubt on Democrats’ latest round of gun control dreams.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2E0XuaZ
via IFTTT

Kamala Night at the DNC: The Party Anoints Harris and Brags About Biden’s Crime Bill

sipaphotosten976351(1)

Crowning Kamala Harris. Former President Barack Obama stole the show on the third night of the Democratic National Convention, reminding Americans that while his words might sometimes be empty, he is very, very good at delivering them. Obama was initially supposed to offer the night’s closing speech after Vice Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris talked, but the former president chose to speak before Harris as a symbolic “passing the torch” gesture. The media and the Democratic base have been eating it up.

“It’s Kamala’s party now,” declared Politico.

Hold on tight—with Harris’ history of flip-flopping to suit voter moods, it’s going to be a bumpy and unpredictable ride.

As it stands, Harris is currently painting herself as a criminal justice reformer. Last night, a voiceover introducing Harris even described her as having fought “to end mass incarceration.”

That would be news to the countless Californians she fought to lock up or keep locked up. As we noted last year, Harris’s record as a “progressive prosecutor” is one of continually cracking down harder on “quality of life crimes” like drug use, prostitution, and truancy.

Criminal justice confusion

Overall, Democrats seem confused about which way they want to go on law and order issues.

The 2020 convention has seen some nods to “racial justice,” policing, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Black Lives Matter, but only in a prop sort of way. There’s been no substantive talk on criminal justice policy and policing reform, and no indication that a Biden-Harris administration would be anything different than business as usual on that front. Even as Democrats make nods to change, Harris, Biden, and other prominent party members speak of new arrest and incarceration regimes they want to put in place—for guns, for speech, for sex, and more.

Out of one side of their mouths, they talk of ending racist and discriminatory policing and our over-reliance on jails and prisons to solve social problems—and almost certainly would support some minor but still important reforms on this front. But out of the other side of their mouths, they push policies that would lead to more surveillance, more legal tools to use against Americans, more ways to extract fines from people and cage them, more reason for contact between law enforcement and those they’re policing, and more opportunities for violence, abuse, and targeted harassment of ethnic, racial, religious, and sexual minorities, and others who historically have borne the brunt of U.S. criminal law.

(The quintessential example of this is how anti-“hate crime” statutes are now being used to escalate punishments against people who commit an offense against police or their property, even inadvertently, or vandalize something with an anti-police message.)

Joe Biden and the Violence Against women Act

During Wednesday’s night’s DNC proceedings, various voiceovers and speakers mentioned Joe Biden’s role in the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—widely considered one of the biggest policy disasters in modern U.S. history and a huge driver of our country’s mass incarceration problem. Of course, they didn’t mention the crime bill by name, just one specific part of it: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). But despite its nice-sounding intentions, several aspects of the VAWA were just as problematic as the rest of the cursed legislation.

Along with the Jacob Wetterling Act, a component of the ’94 crime bill that required the creation of sex offender registries, the VAWA “laid the foundation of the current, overwhelmingly carceral—and increasingly overwrought—response to sexual violence,” write Judith Levine and Erica Meiners in their new book, The Feminist and the Sex Offender. It “answered feminist demands for more law enforcement but ignored their pleas for more services for survivors, funding the former over the latter two to one,” and “married anti-violence feminists to the violent state.”

Among VAWA’s “chief provisions were mandatory arrest in domestic violence situations—including dual arrests if the cops couldn’t figure out who the aggressor was—and ‘no drop’ prosecution, which prohibited the alleged victim from retracting charges,” they point out. “In some jurisdictions, the district attorney began to subpoena women to testify against their partners or jails them until they comply. By 2013, a Queens, New York, prosecutor told Time magazine that less than a quarter of victims cooperated. Moreover, child protective services sometimes charge mothers with neglect or ‘failure to supervise’ for allowing the children to witness their mother’s abuse.”

Before domestic-violence specific bills came into fashion in the 1980s and ’90s, people who abused their spouses and partners were simply arrested and prosecuted under general battery and assault laws. There was probably room for improvement (though the idea that sexist cops simply didn’t care is way overblown). But the need to Do! Something!—driven by faulty research, well-funded feminist campaigners, and a whole lot of moral panic—led to massive new interventions in people’s lives even when they didn’t want it and to more abuse victims being arrested and jailed along with their abusers. There’s also strong evidence that policies promulgated by VAWA were likely to lead to more abuse, especially for already disadvantaged groups.

(Aya Gruber’s new book, The Feminist War on Crime, is a great place to read more about all this. I also plan to write about the failures of the VAWA in more detail at Reason very soon.)

Biden’s heart was probably in the right place here. But like so many “helpful” ’90s crime laws, his policies ended up putting more people in danger and shuffled more Americans into the state’s web of surveillance and control. And while the VAWA may make Democrats feel all warm and fuzzy, their choice to repeatedly highlight it (not just last night but as part of Biden’s whole campaign) shows neither Biden nor the rest of them have learned much since the 1990s.

powerful Pandering and—Perhaps—a Small signal of positive change

Joe Biden, Protector of Women fits in well with the general theme of last night’s spectacle, which was full of generic odes to the Power of Women while simultaneously portraying the government as their necessary and true protector.

Speakers including Harris highlighted how hard U.S. women had to fight to be allowed to vote (codified in the 19th Amendment 100 years ago this week) and ways in which the government—long ago and still today—have been the biggest oppressors of women and minorities. I guess the DNC expects us to believe Biden-Harris will be the exception. But we’ve seen no indication of that from their long political pasts.

In any event, last night’s DNC—which was hosted by actress Kerry Washington and included speeches from Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.)—was thin on substance but rife with generic pandering to women. But a few moments of non-schmaltz did manage to eek through, including heartfelt videos featuring children and families caught up in Trump’s crackdown on immigrants.

Of course, Democrats, including the Obama administration, have a lot to answer for on immigration policy, too—and the DNC immigration videos were also a reminder of this. One featured 11-year-old Estela, whose mom was deported in 2018, reading a letter to Trump. But Estela’s mom “was first deported during the Clinton administration, then flagged for deportation again under the Obama-Biden administration,” notes the Washington Times.

But maybe, just maybe, the Trump administration’s unending exposure of our immigration system’s horrors and progressives’ growing concern about them could actually lead to growth here.

“The issue where it was apparent Democrats have come the farthest in four years was immigration—the policy area that might be least hospitable to abstractions after four years of Donald Trump,” notes Slate.


QUICK HITS

Politics 2020:

• “The 2020 election represents an ongoing demonstration that America’s governing apparatus is trapped in the embrace of the rotting corpses of once-dynamic political organizations,” writes J.D. Tuccille. “Democratic and Republican Party hearts and minds may have died, but they refuse to loosen their grip on political office—and on voters.”

• Jeb Bush wants the president to “kick Q’anon supporters’ butts.”

• Here’s what Trump had to say about the sex-trafficking conspiracy theorists:

• A number of anarchist pages and accounts were reportedly kicked off Facebook yesterday:

• Facebook is also cracking down on Q-Anon accounts.

• For Reason TV, Qinling Li talks to transgender activists fighting for sex work decriminalization in Washington, D.C., and New York City.

• School reopening decisions are being driven by teachers unions and politics, not public health, writes Reason‘s Corey A. Deangelis.

• An appeals court said Florida can’t use secret surveillance recordings against Patriots owner Robert Kraft and other workers and customers caught up in 2019 massage parlor prostitution stings.

• Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty casts doubt on Democrats’ latest round of gun control dreams.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2E0XuaZ
via IFTTT

Defendant “Not to Post Pictures or Comments About” the Administrator of Nursing Home Where Defendant’s Mother Lives

From A.G. v. K.O., decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court Tuesday (Sullivan, Kinder & Lemire):

The plaintiff is the administrator at the nursing home where the defendant’s mother resided. Although the plaintiff did not personally know the defendant prior to the incidents that resulted in the original harassment prevention order, she was aware of the strained relationship between the defendant and nursing home staff members under her direction. Further, a no trespass order issued to the defendant after he “turned his aggression at a nursing home resident.”

On April 26, 2019, the defendant left the plaintiff a voicemail in which he sounded agitated and stated several times that he was “coming down [to the nursing home] right now.” The defendant appeared at the nursing home about forty-five minutes later and “was swearing and screaming obscenities” at the plaintiff. A police officer witnessed the incident and escorted the defendant out of the building. The defendant continued to scream and swear as he was escorted out, and the officer eventually called for backup.

On May 23, 2019, the defendant picketed and distributed flyers outside the nursing home criticizing the plaintiff and the nursing home. The flyers contained the plaintiff’s photograph and full name and accused her of being under investigation for abusing, neglecting, and causing the death of nursing home residents. About a week later, the plaintiff saw the same flyers “on all the telephone poles in [her] neighborhood.” Following the discovery of the flyers, the plaintiff was “extremely worried for the physical safety of [herself] and [her] children,” and applied for and was granted a harassment prevention order.

An extension hearing was held on June 7, 2019, at which the defendant was not present. At the hearing, the plaintiff testified that the defendant had continued to post derogatory statements about her on several places on the Internet. The plaintiff also testified that the defendant had “made new signs” that he was going “to use soon, probably outside [her] work.” The judge extended the original harassment prevention order until June 5, 2020, and modified it, ordering the defendant “not to post pictures or comments about [the] plaintiff anywhere, including online or any public place.”

The court concluded that the initial order (which contained the usual requirements to not abuse, threaten, or contact the plaintiff, to stay away from the plaintiff’s home, and to stay 100 yards away from the plaintiff’s work) was justified by the statute:

As relevant here, harassment is defined as “[three] or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that [did] in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property.” “In the determination of whether the three acts ‘did in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property,’ it is ‘the entire course of harassment, rather than each individual act, that must cause fear or intimidation.'”

A judge could have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed three separate acts of harassment: (1) the voicemail; (2) the defendant’s visit to the nursing home that ended with him being removed by police; and (3) the defendant learning where the plaintiff lived and going to her neighborhood.

In the context of the defendant’s history of hostile behavior toward the nursing home staff and residents, a judge could have found that the voicemail the defendant left the plaintiff, stating that he would “come down [to the nursing home] right now,” was a threat. The judge could have also found that the voicemail was designed to cause fear and that it did in fact cause the plaintiff fear. The act of coming to the nursing home and confronting the plaintiff was clearly an act which a judge could have found was malicious and intended to intimidate the plaintiff and to cause her fear….

Finally, the judge could have also found that the defendant posted flyers around the plaintiff’s neighborhood, which, when viewed in the context of his previous threat and volatile and confrontational behavior at her place of work, was intended to cause the plaintiff fear. The judge could have permissibly found that, in light of the voicemail and the confrontation at the nursing home, this was another escalating act meant to intimidate and cause the plaintiff fear. Furthermore, the judge was permitted to credit the plaintiff’s level of fear, which was described in her affidavit as “extremely worried for the physical safety of [herself] and [her] children.”

But the revised harassment prevention order, “which added a prohibition on ‘post[ing] pictures or comments about [the] plaintiff anywhere, including online or in any public place'” was unconstitutional, the appellate court held:

Instances of speech may not lawfully support a harassment prevention order unless they fall outside the protections of the First Amendment …, either because they are “fighting words” or “true threats.” The judge modified the original harassment prevention order after the plaintiff testified that the defendant had continued to post derogatory statements about her on the Internet, and that the defendant had “made new signs” that he was going “to use soon, probably outside [her] work.”

These actions, however troubling, do not rise to the level of fighting words or true threats. The defendant did not personally insult the plaintiff in a face-to-face interaction, and while the plaintiff may have sincerely feared the defendant, there is no evidence that the defendant intended these particular actions to cause the plaintiff fear of imminent physical harm. None of the defendant’s online postings communicated a threat to commit an act of unlawful violence or an intent to place the plaintiff in fear of bodily harm. The defendant may well have intended to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, but speech intended to cause “a fear of economic loss[ or] of unfavorable publicity” cannot be prohibited as civil harassment. Modifying the original harassment prevention order to account for these actions resulted in an order that covered protected speech.

Therefore, so much of the orders entered on June 7, 2019, and September 13, 2019, that prohibit the defendant from “post[ing] pictures or comments about [the] plaintiff anywhere, including online or in any public place” are vacated….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31eQTCE
via IFTTT

Defendant “Not to Post Pictures or Comments About” the Administrator of Nursing Home Where Defendant’s Mother Lives

From A.G. v. K.O., decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court Tuesday (Sullivan, Kinder & Lemire):

The plaintiff is the administrator at the nursing home where the defendant’s mother resided. Although the plaintiff did not personally know the defendant prior to the incidents that resulted in the original harassment prevention order, she was aware of the strained relationship between the defendant and nursing home staff members under her direction. Further, a no trespass order issued to the defendant after he “turned his aggression at a nursing home resident.”

On April 26, 2019, the defendant left the plaintiff a voicemail in which he sounded agitated and stated several times that he was “coming down [to the nursing home] right now.” The defendant appeared at the nursing home about forty-five minutes later and “was swearing and screaming obscenities” at the plaintiff. A police officer witnessed the incident and escorted the defendant out of the building. The defendant continued to scream and swear as he was escorted out, and the officer eventually called for backup.

On May 23, 2019, the defendant picketed and distributed flyers outside the nursing home criticizing the plaintiff and the nursing home. The flyers contained the plaintiff’s photograph and full name and accused her of being under investigation for abusing, neglecting, and causing the death of nursing home residents. About a week later, the plaintiff saw the same flyers “on all the telephone poles in [her] neighborhood.” Following the discovery of the flyers, the plaintiff was “extremely worried for the physical safety of [herself] and [her] children,” and applied for and was granted a harassment prevention order.

An extension hearing was held on June 7, 2019, at which the defendant was not present. At the hearing, the plaintiff testified that the defendant had continued to post derogatory statements about her on several places on the Internet. The plaintiff also testified that the defendant had “made new signs” that he was going “to use soon, probably outside [her] work.” The judge extended the original harassment prevention order until June 5, 2020, and modified it, ordering the defendant “not to post pictures or comments about [the] plaintiff anywhere, including online or any public place.”

The court concluded that the initial order (which contained the usual requirements to not abuse, threaten, or contact the plaintiff, to stay away from the plaintiff’s home, and to stay 100 yards away from the plaintiff’s work) was justified by the statute:

As relevant here, harassment is defined as “[three] or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that [did] in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property.” “In the determination of whether the three acts ‘did in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property,’ it is ‘the entire course of harassment, rather than each individual act, that must cause fear or intimidation.'”

A judge could have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed three separate acts of harassment: (1) the voicemail; (2) the defendant’s visit to the nursing home that ended with him being removed by police; and (3) the defendant learning where the plaintiff lived and going to her neighborhood.

In the context of the defendant’s history of hostile behavior toward the nursing home staff and residents, a judge could have found that the voicemail the defendant left the plaintiff, stating that he would “come down [to the nursing home] right now,” was a threat. The judge could have also found that the voicemail was designed to cause fear and that it did in fact cause the plaintiff fear. The act of coming to the nursing home and confronting the plaintiff was clearly an act which a judge could have found was malicious and intended to intimidate the plaintiff and to cause her fear….

Finally, the judge could have also found that the defendant posted flyers around the plaintiff’s neighborhood, which, when viewed in the context of his previous threat and volatile and confrontational behavior at her place of work, was intended to cause the plaintiff fear. The judge could have permissibly found that, in light of the voicemail and the confrontation at the nursing home, this was another escalating act meant to intimidate and cause the plaintiff fear. Furthermore, the judge was permitted to credit the plaintiff’s level of fear, which was described in her affidavit as “extremely worried for the physical safety of [herself] and [her] children.”

But the revised harassment prevention order, “which added a prohibition on ‘post[ing] pictures or comments about [the] plaintiff anywhere, including online or in any public place'” was unconstitutional, the appellate court held:

Instances of speech may not lawfully support a harassment prevention order unless they fall outside the protections of the First Amendment …, either because they are “fighting words” or “true threats.” The judge modified the original harassment prevention order after the plaintiff testified that the defendant had continued to post derogatory statements about her on the Internet, and that the defendant had “made new signs” that he was going “to use soon, probably outside [her] work.”

These actions, however troubling, do not rise to the level of fighting words or true threats. The defendant did not personally insult the plaintiff in a face-to-face interaction, and while the plaintiff may have sincerely feared the defendant, there is no evidence that the defendant intended these particular actions to cause the plaintiff fear of imminent physical harm. None of the defendant’s online postings communicated a threat to commit an act of unlawful violence or an intent to place the plaintiff in fear of bodily harm. The defendant may well have intended to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, but speech intended to cause “a fear of economic loss[ or] of unfavorable publicity” cannot be prohibited as civil harassment. Modifying the original harassment prevention order to account for these actions resulted in an order that covered protected speech.

Therefore, so much of the orders entered on June 7, 2019, and September 13, 2019, that prohibit the defendant from “post[ing] pictures or comments about [the] plaintiff anywhere, including online or in any public place” are vacated….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31eQTCE
via IFTTT