The anonymous blogger I call “Coleman” has written the following in a comment over at his hate blog dedicated to Aaron Walker (No, I won’t link to it.):
As far as I know Bill’s case will be put on appeal and will probably be over turned due to the federal ruling on Cassidy.
Fine. If that’s the way that Kimberlin wants to waste his time and money, he can. (Does anyone know how he affords all this on $19,500 a year?)
So what is this Cassidy case that Coleman mentions? United States v. Cassidy [814 F.Supp.2d 574 (2011)] was a case tried in federal district court in Baltimore. Judge Titus found that the application of the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional in that particular case. He did not find that the law was facially unconstitutional but only as applied to William Cassidy’s behavior as alleged in the indictment.
So how does that impact Maryland’s harassment statute? IANAL, but the lawyers I’ve talked to say probably not at all. Maryland’s law has been upheld at every level of appeal in the State’s courts. When it was appealed the the U. S. Supreme Court, the Supremes refused to hear the case. Harassment is not protected by the First Amendment, and the states have the right to punish it.
Both Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt have tried to make a big deal out of the idea that because their actions were chargeable under the misuse of electronic communications law, they aren’t covered by the general harassment statute also. That’s simply wrong—as Judge Stansfield ruled in Hoge v. Schmalfeldt when granting a peace order.
You know, for a bunch of folks who are supposed to be Internet savvy, it’s surprising that Team Kimberlin acts as if they haven’t heard of the Streisand Effect.