When asked to cite a case where the Supremes had so ruled, the response was …
The reason is quite simple. There is no such ruling; the question hasn’t been considered by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the applicable case law says the opposite, including Hoge v. Schmalfeldt (Md. Cir.Ct. Carr.Co. 2013) Case No. 06-C-063359 (cert. denied). Schmalfeldt raised the “@mention isn’t contact” argument in paragraph 2 of his Supplement to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari during his appeal in that case. The Court of Appeals didn’t buy it, finding “there is no showing that review by certiorari is desirable or in the public interest.”
A large part of the hopeful confusion among the pro-harassment crowd relied on their focusing on the fact that Internet harassment is specifically covered by a Maryland statute, but the missed the fact that it violates another Maryland law as well, one that can be a trigger for a peace order. That law, the statute dealing with harassment generally, is the one which the Circuit Court found Schmalfeldt transgressed.
There is no safe harbor in Maryland law for harassment via the Internet.
UPDATE—After referring to those questioning his legal scholarship as “lickspittles,” @LibtardMedia has taken his account private. Now, who would call his opponents “lickspittles”?