No. 78665-2-I in the COURT of APPEALS of the STATE of WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 78665-2-I IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE JASON E. SLOTEMAKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent-Appellee. BRIEF OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, AND WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE Nancy Talner, WSBA #11196 Hyland Hunt, WSBA #53697 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES DEUTSCH HUNT PLLC UNION OF WASHINGTON 300 New Jersey Ave. NW, Ste. 900 901 5th Ave., Ste. 630 Washington, DC 20001 Seattle, WA 98164 (202) 868-6915 [email protected] Rita Griffith, WSBA #14360 WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF Eugene Volokh, pro hac vice pending CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS SCOTT & CYAN BANISTER FIRST 1511 3rd Ave., Ste. 503 AMENDMENT CLINIC Seattle, WA 98101 UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Attorneys for Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ....................................2 ISSUE ADDRESSED BY AMICI CURIAE Is RCW 9.61.260(1)(b), which criminalizes speech (including speech to the public on matters of public concern) based solely on purportedly bad intent and repetition or anonymity, facially overbroad in violation of Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? ........................................................................................4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................4 ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................4 I. A Precedential Opinion Is Necessary To Provide Guidance On The Law’s Invalidity And To Mitigate Its Chilling Effect. .................4 II. Washington’s Cyberstalking Law Is Overbroad And Facially Unconstitutional Under The First Amendment And Article 1, Section 5 Of The Washington Constitution. ........................................6 A. The Statute Is an Alarmingly Broad Restriction on Pure Speech to the Public that Prohibits a Substantial Amount of Protected Speech. ..................................................................7 1. The statute regulates pure speech to the public. ...............7 2. The speech regulation is content-based and very broad. ................................................................................8 3. These features distinguish cyberstalking from telephone harassment. .....................................................11 B. The Statute’s Intent Requirements Do Not Sufficiently Narrow Its Scope. ....................................................................12 1. Intent to embarrass does not render speech unprotected. ....................................................................13 2. The statute’s other intent requirements cover a substantial amount of protected speech. .........................15 C. Anonymous and Repeated Speech Is Fully Protected by the First Amendment. ..............................................................18 i III. The Statute Is Not Narrowly Tailored To Serve A Compelling Government Interest. ..........................................................................19 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................20 APPENDIX Bellingham v. Dodd, No. CB 93720 (Bellingham Mun. Ct. Sept 30, 2016) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) WASHINGTON CASES Bradburn v. N. Cent. Reg’l Library Dist., 168 Wn.2d 789, 231 P.3d 166 (2010) .......................................................................................................7 Seattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 767 P.2d 572 (1989) ....................... passim Seattle v. State, 100 Wn.2d 232, 668 P.2d 1266 (1983) ..............................6 State v. Alexander, 76 Wn. App. 830, 888 P.2d 175 (1995) ..................9, 11 State v. Immelt, 173 Wn.2d 1, 267 P.3d 305 (2011) ..................................19 State v. Stanley, No. 74204-3-I, 2017 WL 3868480 (Wash. App. Sept. 5, 2017) (nonbinding) ...............................................................5, 14 FEDERAL CASES FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 127 S. Ct. 2652, 168 L. Ed. 2d 329 (2007) .......................................................................13 Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964) .............................................................. 12, 13 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S. Ct. 1511, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1995) .................................................................18, 19 NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S. Ct. 3409, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1215 (1982) .................................................................17, 19 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964) .........................................................................15 Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 91 S. Ct. 1575, 29 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1971) .............................................................9, 16, 17, 19 Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 198 L. Ed. 2d 273 (2017) .........................................................................8 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 192 L. Ed. 2d 236 (2015) ........10 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997) .................................................................12, 20 Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dep’t, 397 U.S. 728, 90 S. Ct. 148, 425 L. Ed. 2d 736 (1970) .........................................................................9 iii Rynearson v. Ferguson, 355 F. Supp. 3d 964 (W.D. Wash. 2019) .......................................1, 5, 15 903 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................5 United States v. Cassidy, 814 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Md. 2011) ..................12 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010) .........................................................6, 8, 10, 11 Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 108 S. Ct. 1157, 99 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1988) .........................................................................14 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S. Ct. 876, 99 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1988) ...........................................................................14 OTHER CASES People v. Golb, 991 N.Y.S.2d 792, 15 N.E.3d 805 (N.Y. 2014) ...............18 State v. Burkert, 174 A.3d 987 (N.J. 2017)................................................17 CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES RCW 9.61.260 ................................................................................... passim OTHER AUTHORITIES Jennifer Sullivan, Web cartoons making fun of Renton taken seriously, Seattle Times, Aug. 4, 2011 .....................................................................6 Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (online ed. 2017) ......................................................................................................16 iv INTRODUCTION It is a crime for Washingtonians to speak online “repeatedly or anonymously” if a jury finds that their purpose is to “harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass.” See RCW 9.61.260(1)(b) (criminalizing “mak[ing] an electronic communication to . a third party” “with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person” if communication is done “[a]nonymously or repeatedly”). Yet the First Amendment protects even speech intended to cause emotional distress or motivated by hostility—both because that speech is itself constitutionally valuable, and because restricting such speech unduly chills even well-motivated speech. As a federal district court has found, because RCW 9.61.260(1)(b) “criminalizes a large range of non-obscene, non-threatening speech, based only on (1) purportedly bad intent and (2) repetition or anonymity,” it is facially overbroad and violates the First Amendment. Rynearson v. Ferguson, 355 F. Supp. 3d 964, 969 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (granting preliminary injunction). The State now concedes the statute is unconstitutional. But that concession is not enough to remedy the harm caused by the statute, which criminalizes and chills a wide variety of fully protected political, social, and personal commentary. The concession does not bind other county prosecutors and, unless the unconstitutionality of the statute is addressed 1 by a published opinion, the statute will continue to cause harmful confusion for the public and participants in the legal system, and will continue to chill Washingtonians’ speech. Amici urge the Court to issue a precedential opinion holding that RCW 9.61.260(1)(b) is overbroad and facially unconstitutional. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (“ACLU-WA”) is a statewide, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, with over 135,000 members and supporters, that is dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties including the right to free speech. The ACLU-WA strongly opposes laws and government action that infringe on the free exchange of ideas or that unconstitutionally restrict protected expression. It has advocated for free speech and the First Amendment directly, and as amicus curiae, at all levels of state and federal courts. See, e.g., Lakewood v. Willis, 186 Wn.2d 210, 375 P.3d 1056 (2016); Rynearson, supra. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) is a San Francisco- based, non-profit, member-supported digital rights