The People v. Marquan M. / County of Albany, 19 N.E.3d 480

Background

A 16-year-old student (Marquan M.) anonymously posted sexually explicit and private information about classmates on a public Facebook page; police identified and charged him under Albany County Local Law No. 11 (2010) — a newly enacted cyberbullying misdemeanor.
The local law defined “cyber-bullying” broadly to include any electronic communication that disseminates embarrassing, sexual, private, or false information “with no legitimate … purpose” and with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, intimidate, humiliate, or inflict significant emotional harm.
Defendant pleaded guilty while reserving First Amendment claims; lower courts upheld the statute as applied to minors and affirmed the conviction.
On appeal, defendant argued the statute was overbroad and vague under the Free Speech Clause; Albany County conceded some provisions were problematic and urged severance to preserve a narrower child-focused statute.
The Court analyzed whether the statute could be saved by severance and strict construction, focusing on the text’s facial scope and whether it reached protected speech beyond unprotected categories.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the cyberbullying statute violates the Free Speech Clause as overbroad	Marquan: statute is facially overbroad because it criminalizes protected speech (e.g., annoying or embarrassing communications) beyond unprotected categories	County: concede some parts invalid but ask court to sever offending language so statute targets sexual communications about minors intended to inflict emotional harm	Held: statute is facially overbroad and invalid; county’s proposed severance would judicially rewrite the law and cannot cure overbreadth
Whether statute is unconstitutionally vague (fair notice and arbitrary enforcement)	Marquan: language like “no legitimate … purpose” and listed verbs (e.g., annoy, humiliate) are vague and permit arbitrary enforcement	County: terms can be severed or interpreted narrowly; similar phrases have been upheld in prior cases (e.g., “no legitimate purpose”)	Held: Severance cannot narrowly tailor the law without rewriting it; vagueness concerns remain if court tries to impose county’s narrow reading
Whether criminalizing cyberbullying of children is permissible under First Amendment	Marquan: broad text exceeds permissible limits on speech regulation; protects speech not in narrow unprotected categories	County: government has compelling interest in protecting children and may narrowly prohibit certain cyberbullying aimed at minors	Held: Court assumes government may regulate some child-directed cyberbullying but finds this statute’s text does not effectuate a sufficiently narrow, constitutionally valid prohibition
Whether the offensiveness and harm of defendant’s conduct justify upholding the statute as applied	Marquan: offensive posts are harmful but statute’s breadth is the problem	County: defendant’s conduct (identifying minors, sexualizing them online) exemplifies the statute’s legitimate reach	Held: Court recognizes conduct was harmful but cannot sustain conviction under this facially invalid statute; accusatory instrument dismissed

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (struck down overbroad ban on depictions of animal cruelty; overbreadth analysis)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (statutory interpretation required before First Amendment overbreadth inquiry)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786 (public interest in protecting children; strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions)
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (First Amendment protection for internet speech; caution on overbroad statutes)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (distinction between speech on public vs. private matters; protection for emotive but public-concern speech)
United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (enumeration of historically unprotected categories and presumption of protection outside them)
People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412 (overbreadth doctrine; analysis without reference to defendant’s conduct)
People v. Shack, 86 N.Y.2d 529 (upholding prohibition phrased with “no legitimate purpose” in harassment context)
People v. Dietze, 75 N.Y.2d 47 (limits on judicial rewriting of statutes; First Amendment concerns)