Bill Schmalfeldt has yet another website wasting bandwidth on the Interwebz at pupsoc dot com (No, I won’t link to it.). He has a post up in which he tries one more time to convince the world that the Circuit Court of Maryland for Carroll County and the Maryland Court of Appeals don’t properly understand the laws of the State of Maryland.For the record, I have never said that either the Maryland Attorney General, the Maryland Legislature, or the U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland are wrong on any of the issues connected to the Hoge v. Schmalfeldt peace order. I have said that the Cabin Boy and his legal counsel from Acme are throughly, totally, and utterly wrong in their understanding of what those folks have said about the law.
First, the Attorney General … The letter Schmalfeldt keeps waving around does not bear on the question of whether or not he harassed me under the general harassment statute. It does relate to whether he might be criminally charged under the more severe misuse of electronic communications law. There are two subpoints to consider here. One is that only the general harassment statute relates to a peace order. The other is that the Cabin Boy must misconstrue Twitter’s Rules and Best Practices to try to dance around the fact that Twitter says that it delivers @mentions and @replies to the named account. That qualifies as a message sent to specific address under the tougher law.
Second, the Legislature … The Legislature has been tweaking the misuse of electronic communication statute, but nothing they have done gives Schmalfeldt a license to violate the general harassment statute. The fact that an act might not a crime under law A does not mean that it ceases to be a violation of law B.
Third, the U. S. District Court … The U.S. v. Cassidy case which Schmalfeldt wishes would support his legal theory does not deal with the question before the courts in Hoge v. Schmalfeldt. In Cassidy the District Court found that a particular federal law was being misapplied to a set of tweets on Twitter about a someone. It does not deal with tweets addressed to someone. As Judge Stansfield patiently tried to explain to the Cabin Boy during the hearing on 16 October, the First Amendment’s protection of speech directed to the public about someone is broader than speech directed to someone, especially when that person has asked to be left alone. The Court of Appeals let Judge Stansfield’s ruling stand by refusing to hear Schmalfeldt’s appeal because
there has been no showing that review by certiorari is desirable and in the public interest.
In other words, none of the Cabin Boy’s legal arguments were worth the Court’s time.
I fully expect that Schmalfeldt will do something outrageously stupid very soon.