United States v. Cassidy
814 F. Supp. 2d 574
D. Maryland2011Background
- Cassidy used Twitter and a Blog to harass A.Z., a public religious figure, causing substantial emotional distress; the conduct was online and potentially public to others; A.Z. alleges harassment stemming from Cassidy’s belief he was a tulku and prior affiliation with KPC; the government charged Cassidy under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A); the statute was amended in 2006 to include harass or cause emotional distress via interstate communications; Cassidy moved to dismiss arguing First Amendment overbreadth and vagueness; the court granted the motion to dismiss as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2261A(2)(A) is unconstitutional as applied | Cassidy argues overbreadth and violation of First Amendment | Cassidy contends statute criminalizes protected speech | § 2261A(2)(A) unconstitutional as applied |
| Whether the statute is overbroad on its face | Government relies on broader reach; as applied invalidates facial. | Statute can be narrowed; overbreadth challenge inappropriate here | Court avoids facial ruling, holding as applied invalid |
| Whether § 2261A(2)(A) is unconstitutionally vague | Vagueness challenge not resolved on facial grounds; court considers as applied | ||
| Whether the regulation is content-based and subject to strict scrutiny | Speech about religion/public figures; content-based restriction | Regulation serves emotional-distress prevention | Content-based restriction failed strict scrutiny; invalid as applied |
| Whether the conduct/speech distinction affects constitutionality | Speech, in context, remains protected; regulation not narrowly tailored |
Key Cases Cited
- Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (U.S. 2002) (anonymous speech protection)
- Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 577 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2009) (First Amendment anonymity protections)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1995) (anonymous political speech protected)
- Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1960) (anonymous speech fundamental protection)
- Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1988) (emotional impact speech protected in public debate)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (public concern speech protection)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1940) (protects religious critique speech)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1997) (Internet speech protected; First Amendment applies online)
- PSINet Inc. v. Chapman, 362 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2004) (content-based restriction scrutiny)
- Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc. v. Playboy,, 529 U.S. 803 (U.S. 2000) (content-based restrictions and compelled viewing)
- United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (U.S. 2010) (speech-based protections; depictions of animal cruelty)
- Popa v. United States, 187 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (as-applied challenge to anonymous-communications statute)