Trib stalker's free speech defense tossed by Oregon Supremes
A man who stalked an editor at the Portland Tribune, and then allegedly violated an anti-stalking restraining order, has lost in his bid to have the criminal charge of violating the order dismissed. He had argued, successfully in the Oregon Court of Appeals, that he could not be prosecuted for continuing to send communications to the victim's father in violation of the order, because it would abridge his rights of free speech. Now the Oregon Supreme Court has unanimously reversed the court of appeals and thrown out the fellow's defense. Even the Oregon Constitution, whose speech protections are extraordinarily broad, doesn't go that far.
| Posted at 5:42 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (2)
Stalking orders certainly seem critical in preventing the continued victimization of persons on the wrong end of a disturbed person’s intentions, but they could be a free speech slippery slope indeed.
Though it sounds like the OSC got it right here, each case would have a different set of circumstances left up in large part to the interpretation of the court before an order is issued. Especially difficult when you have to start dissecting words such as “alarmed”.
Then, if an order is violated more arguments are likely to follow.
Meanwhile, I imagine in this particular case the court had no way to mandate any treatment for the defendant pending his appeals.
Posted by Gibby | September 10, 2011 7:48 AM
The person loosing this case did not have his free speech suppressed.
He is free to say what he likes, he just can't continue to write/call/email the person he wishes to harass.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says a person has to LISTEN to your speech and you certainly don't have the right to force them.
The Supreme court rulled correctly IMHO.
Posted by tankfixer | September 10, 2011 10:02 PM