© JOSH EDELSON / AFP
Richard Heffron III, 39, of Bath, Maine, was convicted last year for violating a protection order arising from abuse. He did so by posting messages on his Facebook page about his former girlfriend that he was forbidden by state law to contact. In fact, at the time when the threatening rants were posted, the female victim was no longer his Facebook friend and has blocked him from her page.
In Maine, just like in many other states in the US, a person may seek court protection to help stop domestic violence. A restraining order allows the protected person to ask for police intervention if the individual it targets tries to come near or communicate with them.
After Heffron's posts popped up in the news flow of their shared Facebook friends, the ex-girlfriend reported it to the local police. The force then charged the 39-year-old with violating the court-mandated restriction. Heffron was then convicted by a local court last year and was sentenced to three weeks in jail and one-year probation.
He appealed the conviction on the grounds that his Facebook comments were free speech. Heffron argued that his social media posts did not constitute direct or indirect contact with the woman.
On Tuesday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court rejected the appellant's arguments. "The court correctly determined that Heffron's communications with the protected person fell short of those that deserve constitutional protection," Justice Jeffrey Hjelm wrote, noting that the conviction "did not place his First Amendment rights at risk."
Commenting on the verdict, James Mason, Heffron's attorney, expressed "disappointment", noting that there was "no evidence" that his client "ever intended to have these comments reach" his former partner.
"It lets people know that they do need to be careful about what they post on the internet," Mason said, according to AP. "It makes it clear that you have limited First Amendment protections on the internet, especially on Facebook."
This is exactly the type of tripe America saw in the inane *Hon. Lance 'n-word' rulings and hearings, which successfully helped sidetrack and hijack the the issue to the not guilty verdict.
But fooling a jury is by nature the job of many criminal defense attorneys, and infinitely more prosecutors. In contrast, managing to fool a Supreme Court with such irrelevancy that it makes it into the case's appellate record, and perhaps even into the its final opinion...(did it? I ain't gonna find out)
(but the AP linked story - helping to muddy the waters, and which, unsurprisingly, provides no link to the relevant Opinions - offers this
Heffron and the woman with whom he'd had a relationship were no longer Facebook friends but still had friends in common. In the posts, Heffron referred to the woman by name and threatened to harm her. A friend brought the comments to the woman's attention. (Her new, insecure, boyfriend.) I at least hope that there exist some dissenting opinions in the matter which almost certainly would back up these points in detail.
Hard cases make bad laws - such as the ruling/interpretations that appear to have been the case here - and 'laws' include such court decisions, as 'laws' are a combination of modern written laws plus the opinions on them, plus the inherited wisdom (some) from The Common Law 'hornbook' rulings (e.g., Blackstones' Laws); of which most have since been superseded by more specific statutes. (E.g., as I recall, burglary was originally restricted to only nighttime intrusions. However, the fact of whether the burglar walked through an unlocked, though lockable door, was long ago (~ in the eighteenth century?) ruled (I'd guess) to have been a sufficient 'B&E' for conviction; issue thereby resolved in the Common Law.)
T'were I the Professor, I'd give that court a failing grade.
Class dismissed.
R.C.