In Summary, …

… what Judge Stansfield told Bill Schmalfeldt in court yesterday was this:

1. The Misuse of Electronic Communication statute has no bearing on the Hoge v. Schmalfeldt peace order because none of the court’s findings were based on it. The court found Schmalfeldt to have violated the Harassment statute.

2. @mentions per se are not at issue in the case. While the direct contact involved in the finding of harassment came via @mentions, the order prohibits all further contact, attempts to contact, or harassment.

3. There is no “journalism” exception to Maryland’s Harassment law.

4. U.S. v. Cassidy deals with publications about someone. Hoge v. Schmalfeldt deals with communication directed to someone.

5. All the questions above were settled at trial and will not be retried unless the Court of Appeals remands the case for retrial.

Now, what new circumstance require that the order be modified?

4 thoughts on “In Summary, …

  1. That is how I understand it. Although Schmalfeldt continues to argue that @ mentions are NOT contact, the court, and Twitter, see it differently. ( Bill’s argument seems to revolve around the fact that if you send someone and @ mention who does not follow you, it appears in their Mentions and not on their Timeline. For some reason Bill has seized on this and declared that anything on your Mentions tab is NOT contact. I know, Bizzaro world.

  2. Pingback: Separated at Birth: Pathological Liars | Batshit Crazy News

Leave a Reply