Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Police in Renton, Washington are seeking an unknown cartoonist for cyberstalking. To that end, officials have obtained a search warrant from a local judge to discover the identity of the anonymous cartoonist. The alleged crime this cartoonist committed? Posting cartoons online parodying the Renton Police Department and referring to real life internal affairs incidents at the Renton PD in the dialog. It is important to note that neither is the Renton Police Department named nor are the real names of any people attached to the Renton Police Department are used in the cartoons linked posted by KIRO TV. The videos are not in a format that can be embedded in WordPress, but the Jail Parody and the Locker Room Parody can both be seen at KIRO TV’s website.
Parody is protected free speech in many cases, but the case law is unclear in providing bright line definitions of what does and what doesn’t qualify as parody. This often leads to detailed case by case examination of claims. When the parody involves copyrighted materials, there are guidelines and tests to apply in determining if the parody is legitimate. Generally speaking, there are two lines of defense involving parody: the free speech defense based in Constitutional law and the fair use defense based in copyright law. As these parodies do not involve copyrighted materials, the fair use defense is not relevant here. The free speech defense is another matter. As a matter of Constitutional law, parody is protected free speech. Is the Renton Police Department attempting to use a criminal statute to persecute a critic engaging in critical parody and repress the cartoonist’s 1st Amendment Free Speech rights? Some think that’s exactly what they are doing.
KIRO TV brought the matter to the attention of attorney Venkat Balasubramani, an expert in cyber-law and constitutional issues. After reviewing several of the parody videos and the court documents, Mr. Balasubramani offered the following opinions. “The cyberstalking angle doesn’t pass the laugh test. It’s a serious stretch and I’d be surprised if somebody looked at it and realistically thought these acts actually fit the statute and we could make somebody criminally liable.” When Balasubramani was asked about a more likely scenario, he said, “I think they were trying to get at the speaker and they looked around for a statute that shoehorned their conduct into and sent that to Google and said ‘turn over the information.'”
In Washington state, cyberstalking is defined by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9.61.260 as follows:
(1) A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party:
(a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act;
(b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or
(c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or household.
(2) Cyberstalking is a gross misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.
(3) Cyberstalking is a class C felony if either of the following applies:
(a) The perpetrator has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, with the same victim or a member of the victim’s family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact order or no-harassment order in this or any other state; or
(b) The perpetrator engages in the behavior prohibited under subsection (1)(c) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.
(4) Any offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been committed either at the place from which the communication was made or at the place where the communication was received.
(5) For purposes of this section, “electronic communication” means the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means. “Electronic communication” includes, but is not limited to, electronic mail, internet-based communications, pager service, and electronic text messaging.
After initial attempts by KIRO TV to contact both the City Attorney’s office and the Renton Police Department for comment concerning the motivation of the charges were rebuffed, the Renton Police Department finally issued a statement on Thursday. “Some of the videos are incidents of misconduct, some are unsubstantiated, some are rumors, some are previous internal investigations that were found to be unfounded and some are just flat out untrue and lies. I would rather err on the side of investigating all complaints (and) alleged criminal misconduct rather than risk failing to investigate a crime that’s been reported,” said Renton Police Chief Kevin Milosevich. Some might think that statement sounds more like an excuse rather than an answer to whether the charges are proper or not.
Do you think the cartoons are protected free speech parody or legitimate cyberstalking? Is the Washington statute the Renton Police are attempting to use over broad and subject to Constitutional abuses? Is the Renton Police Department seeking to use criminal law to persecute and prosecute an artist’s permissible exercise of free speech rights?
What do you think?
Source: KIROTV.com (1), (2), RCW
~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Steve K, Yes, well and succinctly put.
The judge, the police officer and the prosecutor are morons, and at the end of this process, they judge should be sanctioned, the prosecutor charged with prosecutorial misconduct and the police officer sent on to finish high school.
I would not recommend that the cartoonist do that on the White House website.
The president commands a 60,000 man assassination squad and he uses it every day.
More wasting of taxpayer money to further a political agenda.
culheath,
Okay … how’s this:
I’m quoting culheath who is quoting someone who is smarter than both of us!
It is exactly what it looks like. This is to me analogous to and no more than a “SLAP” suit. This is an abuse of the law. The law is now being used to punish whistleblowers and stifle scientific and academic freedom.
This is happening at more than the local level too:
Star Polar Bear Scientist in the Dog House
“Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) in Alaska, has been placed on administrative leave as the agency’s inspector general undertakes an investigation into unnamed “integrity issues.” But an environmental watchdog group believes that the real reason for the investigation is pressure from oil and gas interests who see polar bears as pests that stand between them and the vast mineral reserves deep beneath the Arctic. …. The paper, published in the journal Polar Biology in 2006, documented four dead polar bears in the Beaufort Sea during the course of an annual whale survey in September 2004. It was the first paper to document dead bears, and Monnett and his coauthor projected that there would likely be an increase in bear deaths as sea ice declined in the region. During their conversation, Monnett noted that the paper was reviewed both internally at Minerals Management Service (now known as BOEMRE) and by scientists outside of the agency, and it was approved by MMS management before they submitted it to the journal. At the journal, it was reviewed by three anonymous peer reviewers and approved for publication.”
http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/07/charles-monnett-polar-bear-scientist
It’s an interesting article, BOEMRE apparently is the new name for the Mineral Management Services which was supposed to be restructured in response to the alleged (and pretty darn obvious) corruption of the MMS in the wake of the BP/Gulf crisis. The MMS was accused of virtually colluding with big energy to exploit energy resources in spite of the laws they were supposed to comply with.
Apparently one of the first things the internal watchdog decided was of pressing need to investigate (and destroy if necessary) was one of the foremost scientists studying the effect of global warming on sea ice.
That Leopard sure hasn’t changed it’s spots.
I’m certain I’m quoting someone…I just can’t remember who to hand the attribute to.
“Ridicule is one of the best weapons the public has against tyranny. “(culheath)
Right on … and it works!
I don’t believe in the state or any of its agencies being able to be considered victims of any crime outside of maybe sedition. Ridicule is one of the best weapons the public has against tyranny. How do you stalk a public agency anyway?
Does this mean Sarah Palin can try and get charges brought up against Tina Fey?
The author of these cartoons should be persecuted–for rotten production values.
The law itself is an affront against free speech. Furthermore it is an unnecessary law. Existing laws against threats already exist. Reading the law at its most liberal nearly any comment that is less than glowing could be “stalking”. Cartoonist, comics, political commentators, the general public and more would all be siting in jail if this law was fully enforced. Should Tina Fey be in jail for trying to embarrass Palin?
Hell it seems a negative review of a movie, book, product, or whatever could be ruled illegal under this law provided it is posted online.
Websites such as consumerist.com would equally seem to be breaking the law under the police’s interpretation.
I imagine in many cases it would be nearly impossible to PROVE that the reason for the postings is”to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person”. What if the intent is to inform and educate?
I will agree that there should be facts to back up the postings. If they are making a cartoon about the mayor having “alone time” with barnyard animals it should either be clearly evident that it is just for humor or the author should be able to back up his claims with proof.
How in the he’ll can a cartoon be considered stalking?
I’ve never heard the word “cyber” used by anyone whose knowledge in the tech arena I trust.
I think whenever someone is using the word “cyber,” every word out of their mouth should be considered with extreme skepticism.
This is especially true for anyone working in government, amplified even further if it is used by someone in law enforcement.
The word “cyber” should be a warning sign for you: whomever is using it is trying to scare you and take away your rights.
I hope they never find the guy/girl (men/women). I suspect it is a small, tight-knit group.
Certainly the creators knew the administration would come looking … ridiculing those in high places bursts their inner ego-balloons causing an explosion that clouds whatever judgement they may possess. It reveals them for who they are and invites the community to smirk at that reality.
What must be driving the administrators crazy is that they realize all this specific, internal, information points to an “inside” person or group of persons feeding the info to a creative outside source. In any paramilitary group such actions are mutinous and a threat to the chain of command … somebody must walk the plank.
I suspect that, in reality, a small group got fed up with the shenanigans of the administrators; knew they were powerless to bring about change through official channels, so went stealth. From the content of the cartoons I would also suspect some legal advice was obtained before publication. This is no fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants operation.
It’s a good plan in that it has caught the attention of the media and appears to be working.
As the attorney from the news clip stated … cyberstalking? … it doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Cached and no longer available via the local site, apparently… I hate it when they do that, so I’m posting it…
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/news/126797078.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pnwlocalnewsnews+%28News+-+PNW+Local+News%29&utm_content=Google+International
Renton Police Department investigating possible cyberstalking of three police employees
By DEAN RADFORD
Renton Reporter Editor
Aug 04 2011, 7:02 PM
As part of a cyberstalking investigation, the Renton Police Department is considering the possibility that a department employee or someone close to the department posted nine videos on YouTube.
The videos were posted in April in an attempt to “embarrass and emotionally torment” three employees of the Police Department, according to an affidavit filed to obtain a search warrant used in the investigation.
Police Chief Kevin Milosevich briefed the media on the investigation Thursday afternoon in front of Renton City Hall.
He indicated investigators don’t know if more than one person was involved in posting the videos.
Earlier this year a department employee was demoted in a similar incident.
The story was originally reported by KIRO TV, which posted two of the nine videos. The Police Department was releasing the other seven videos Thursday evening, which Milosevich said more clearly reveal why the city is investigating the videos as a crime.
“The videos currently posted by a local media outlet are a very mild representation of the entirety of the contents,” Milosevich said. “The videos that are the basis of the criminal investigation are being released this afternoon.”
The Renton Reporter will post those videos when technically possible.
Milosevich initially read a prepared statement in which he said he would not discuss the details of the investigation. He said the department presented the facts in the case of cyberstalking to prosecutors.
The facts, he said, “met the definition of a crime.”
Milosevich had been asked whether the video parodies were constitutionally protected free speech.
Under state law, a person “is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party, using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act.”
Cyberstalking is misdemeanor, although there are specific requirements that could result in a felony charge.
According to the affidavit for the search warrant, Milosevich discovered the videos online on April 16 but they were removed on April 20.
“It was reported that the eight videos discussed topics, such as sexual relationships, sexual orientation, internal investigations, and negative working relationships within an unnamed Police Department,” according to the affidavit.
According to the affidavit, three Police Department employees came forward to say they were targeted by “embarrassing and emotionally tormenting comments” regarding past sexual or dating relationships.
Those relationships had resulted in departmental investigations; one of the employees was cleared, while complaints involving the other two were sustained, according to Milosevich.
Milosevich indicated those internal investigations had no bearing on the current criminal investigation.
The videos also refer the SCORE, or the regional jail known formally as South Correctional Facility. Renton is a partner in that jail with other South King County cities.
A search warrant was issued in July seeking information from Google Legal Investigations Support, based in Mountain View, Calif.
Investigators are for information about subscribers, e-mails, IP addresses user names and credit-card use. The videos were posted under the user names, Mrfuddlesticks, whothehellispenny and tellinthetruth.
On July 26 Google Inc. provided the Renton Police Department information about the user account named Mrfuddlesticks, including an IP address. That user had signed up for the YouTube account on April 12.
Renton Reporter Editor Dean Radford can be reached at editor@rentonreporter.com or 425-255-3484, ext. 5050.
But this I recall from a few years ago…
Police Say Tacoma Chief Kills Wife, Self
AP
Posted on 04/26/2003 8:19:33 PM PDT by KansasCanadian
Police Say Tacoma Chief Kills Wife, Self
The Associated Press Apr 26 2003 10:49PM
GIG HARBOR, Wash. (AP) – Tacoma Police Chief David Brame was killed and his wife was injured in an apparent murder-suicide attempt Saturday, a day after abuse allegations in the couple’s divorce case were publicized in media reports.
“The probability is strong that the chief shot his wife and then himself,” Pierce County Sheriff’s spokesman Ed Troyer said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/901062/posts
which is less than 20 miles away…
This has to be one of the craziest things I have ever read…but then somebody suggested I read about these folks:
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. I did and now I am really scared…….
I wish I could, Maggie.
SAY IT ISNT SO!