I Am Proud of All Of You For Your Courage In Continuing Posts Despite the Law Change

[Brian Essi]

The new criminal law concerning online harassment took effect yesterday and Deck traffic actually increased--despite a prediction that the law would make criminals out of all of us.

I'm proud of all of you for your courage to exercise First Amendment rights is the face of such intimidation and veiled threat of criminal action against us all.

All of Lakewood should be especially proud Jim O'Bryan who has been viscously sued for exercising his First Amendment rights in an effort to try to protect us from what he believed was wrong, yet he continues to post his views in this wonderful open Forum under ongoing threats to his financial well being and liberty.

Carry on...

[Bridget Conant]

What law change?

[Bridget Conant]

Oh I found it. Here:

http://www.ohiojudges.org/Document.ashx ... 2edb799f1f

[cmager]

All of Lakewood should be especially proud Jim O'Bryan who has been viscously sued for exercising his First Amendment rights in an effort to try to protect us from what he believed was wrong, yet he continues to post his views in this wonderful open Forum under ongoing threats to his financial well being and liberty.

"viscously sued" haha. Don't you just hate sticky, slimy, gooey lawsuits? There may not be a better adjective than this use of viscous.

[Pam Wetula]

Thanks Brian & Bridget.

A question: What constitutes "Mental Distress" with regards to this law?

[Bridget Conant]

My favorite SNL skit is suddenly so apropos:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/281249

Here's a transcript if you don't want to watch the short video:

image.jpeg (336.12 KiB) Viewed 2373 times

[Lori Allen _]

It's funny that this should be mentioned. I just posted the other day how the courts have upheld the right to criticize politicians time and time again, as long as such criticism is not threatening or dangerous.

Will this new law be used in an attempt to silence critics of government statewide? What about locally? It seems to me that if a government official didn't like what was being posted about him or her online, they could just claim mental distress and have you arrested.

If any government official, in Lakewood or elsewhere, is thinking of pulling a stunt like the one mentioned above, I would advise them to tread very carefully. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently sided on the rights of free speech when it comes to criticism of government. I'm pretty sure that if a case like the one mentioned above ever hit the supreme court, said government official would be laughed out of the building. I'm pretty sure the U.S. Supreme Court, the 1st Amendment, and the U.S. Constitution have more authority than a measly law signed by some governor from a state called Ohio.

If you are a government official and criticism causes you "mental distress", perhaps you are in the wrong business.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I am proud of this project everyday, because of the people willing to take part.

I was with a couple people from the Red Cross today, about working with the Observer. We went over what it takes for them to join in and they said, "That is it?" It seems like a dream come true, an open forum and paper. I smiled and said, people are afraid of it. They were puzzled and asked why? I said no one likes what other people post, so they blame the project. "Well that seems silly" was the response.

In a day when civic discourse is disappearing, the art of conversation and compromise are being replaced with teams and win at all costs, We will continue this project and work within the framework of the First Amendment, and laws that follow.

.

[Dan Alaimo]

I've been thinking about this since Brian posted it and I'm not quite sure how it applies to the Deck. It has to do with menacing/stalking and I haven't seen any of that here, although it is not inconceivable and perhaps there was some in the Deck's history. The closest any of us got was Council's bogus police complaint last year against Brian about his "blood on your hands" comment, a comment I agreed with, although I wouldn't have used that terminology, but it certainly got their attention. I'll paste the linked summation below. Some questions to consider:
1) how much is the hosting site (in this case, the Deck) responsible for such an irresponsible post?
2) how can this be used against other statements - it seems pretty narrow to me?
3) are the various terms defined in the law?
4) should something about this be included in the "new rules"?
--
This is pasted from an Ohio Judicial Conference Enactment News PDF, so there may be copying problems, but hopefully no copyright concerns:
http://www.ohiojudges.org/Document.ashx ... 2edb799f1f
"House Bill 151
Menacing by stalking/telecommunications harassment
Effective August 16, 2016
On May 17, 2016, Governor Kasich signed into law H.B. 151 (Rep. Anielski), which expands
the offenses of menacing by stalking and telecommunications harassment. The changes
become effective on August 15, 2016.
“Menacing by stalking” expanded
Existing law (R.C. 2903.211) provides that a person is guilty of menacing by stalking if the
person knowingly causes another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the
other person, or if the offender causes mental distress to the other person. H.B. 151 expands
this offense to also include causing someone to believe the offender will cause physical harm
to a member of the other person’s family or household, which is defined in the bill.
Additionally, existing law prohibits using any electronic method of remotely transferring
information to commit a menacing by stalking offense. H.B. 151 expands this prohibition to
include using “any form of written communication” as well, and specifically includes a
“telecommunication device” as such an electronic method of remotely transferring information.
The bill provides that no person shall use such a method to either directly commit a menacing
by stalking violation, or to urge or incite another to commit such a violation.
Telecommunications harassment
Under existing law (R.C. 2917.21), no person shall make a telecommunication with the
purpose to harass or abuse another person, but only if the person fails first to identify himself
or herself to the recipient of the telecommunication. H.B. 151 amends this so that a person is
guilty of telecommunications harassment regardless of whether the caller identifies himself or
herself. The offense is also extended to include “intimidating” another person via
telecommunication. The bill also adds several activities to the list of what constitutes
telecommunications harassment under R.C. 2917.21:
 Knowingly making a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal to the recipient of
the telecommunication that is threatening, menacing, coercive, or obscene, with
the intent to abuse, threaten, or harass
 Knowingly interrupting the telecommunication service of another without a lawful
business purpose to do so
 Without a lawful business purpose, knowingly transmitting to any person a file,
document, or other communication that prevents the person from using his or her
telephone service or electronic communication device
 Knowingly making a false statement regarding the death, injury, disfigurement,
reputation, indecent conduct, or criminal conduct of the recipient of a
telecommunication (or a family or household member of that person) with the
purpose to abuse, threaten, intimidate, or harass
 Knowingly inciting a person, through a telecommunication, to harass or participate
in the harassment of another person
 Knowingly alarming the recipient by making a telecommunication, without a lawful
purpose, at an hour known to be inconvenient to the recipient and in an offensive
or repetitive manner
 Knowingly posting a text or audio statement or an image on a web site for the
purpose of abusing, threatening, or harassing another person.
Finally, H.B. 151 provides that the telecommunications-harassment prohibitions set forth in
R.C. 2917.21 do not apply to a person solely because the person provided access to an
electronic method of remotely transferring information not under that person’s control, and
also creates certain exceptions for employees of newspapers, magazines, or other media
outlets."

[Bridget Conant]

The offense is also extended to include “intimidating” another person via telecommunication. The bill also adds several activities to the list of what constitutes telecommunications harassment under R.C. 2917.21:

Intimidation is now added to the statute. How interesting!

[Lori Allen _]

I don't really think this applies to the Deck. I think this whole "rules" issue has been made a mountain from a molehill. Read my above post. If public officials don't like criticism, they should probably resign.