Source: https://hogewash.com/2013/10/06/prevarication-du-jour-4/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:37:54+00:00

Document:
They toughened the law in regard to minors. But left intact the prohibition on Twitter as a source of harassment.
§ 3-805. Misuse of electronic communication or interactive computer service.
(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) “Electronic communication” means the transmission of information, data, or a communication by the use of a computer or any other electronic means that is sent to a person and that is received by the person.
(3) “Interactive computer service” means an information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including a system that provides access to the Internet and cellular phones.
(iii) without a legal purpose.
(ii) to place the minor in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.
Section (b)(2) is the part recently added by the Legislature for additional protection of minors. There is nothing in the statute that exempts Twitter or other social media from being covered by the law. It’s just not there. Indeed, the 2012 revision of the earlier 2002 version was enacted by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature in order to specifically include messages sent via social media by changing what was covered from “email” to “electronic communication.” Items that are not sent to and received by a person (eg., simply tweeted with no @mention or @reply) aren’t covered by § 3-805 and are not subject to it’s stiffer penalty, but may still be covered by the general harassment statute (§ 3-803).
All violations of § 3-805 are also violations of § 3-803, but is possible to use electronic communications to violate § 3-803 without running afoul of § 3-805.
§ 3-805 is irrelevant to Hoge v. Schmalfeldt. It never was at issue in the case. Only § 3-803 is. Thus, the Cabin Boy is arguing about something that is a non-issue and is getting his argument wrong as well.
He also has a bizarre idea that the U. S. v. Cassidy [814 F.Supp.2d 574 (2011)] case declares that it is impossible to harass someone via Twitter. That isn’t what the case says. It finds that a particular federal statute was unconstitutionally applied in the particular set of circumstances of a particular case. It does not hold that the federal law in question is unconstitutional but that is was wrongly applied. Furthermore, the decision does not address harassment per se, and harassment has never been held to be a protected form of speech.
Neither state law nor federal law nor the First Amendment provide a safe harbor for harassment on Twitter.
This entry was posted in Crime, Team Kimberlin, Trolls and tagged Cabin Boy Bill Schmalfeldt, Harassment, Misuse of Electronic Communications, US v. Cassidy by wjjhoge. Bookmark the permalink.
Instead of being such a condescending assclown on teh Twitterz, Cabin Boy should be expressing appreciation for attempts at setting his delusional mind straight.
But, alas… he will continue on with his deranged ways. SSDD.
— as long as it isn’t addressed to (or on the website, blog, etc of), the person he has been harassing.
The court has already accepted that using the @ on Twitter is addressing a person. The Attorney General doesn’t write about that issue at all.
Yes, he can’t read. I feel sorry for the judge who has to put up with his kookery.
Judges don’t put up with kookery – they shut it down. If it won’t shut down, judges squash it.
Wow, you guys are just moron lickspittles. Bill says so. You can’t read and you are too stupid to understand that Bill has already won. Mr. Hoge should just surrender now and slink off to live in a foreign country to avoid the massive embarrassment that the esteemed lawyer Schmalfeldt is going to hand out.
In other news, the Giants are on a winning streak.
Hey, guys, we got a promotion from just plain ol’ “lickspittles”!!
That’s Moron Lickspittle Second Class to you.

References: § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3

§ 3
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v.