Is it Stalking or Free Speech?
What’s in a threat?
Janet: This morning I heard a report that highlighted Senator Ted Cruz saying:
"I think there are people who are misguided, trying to drive, you know, Disney stepping in, saying, you know, in every episode now they're gonna have, you know, Mickey and Pluto going at it. Like, really?"
In a Newsweek article 4/25/22 by Darragh Roche, Ted Cruz Mocked Over Disney Remarks About Mickey Mouse 'Going at It’ https://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-mocked-disney-mickey-mouse-florida-1699172 Darragh writes that “Critics have mocked Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) after he suggested that Disney cartoons might feature Mickey Mouse and his pet dog, Pluto, having sex with each other. Cruz made the remarks during a recording of his podcast Verdict With Ted Cruz as part of his disapproval of Disney for the company's public opposition to a controversial new Florida education legislation that critics have dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law.”
Now no matter how we look at this, it’s free speech for Sen. Cruz to lob this statement on his podcast. We can talk about it on our podcast. Crazy to imagine this being anything other than free speech.
Marie: In legal terms, common harassment rises to the level of stalking when harm or violence is imminent. Street harassment, like obscenities or cat-calls can rise to the level of “Fighting Words” and becomes unlawful only when there is an act of violence. For the most part, white, cisgender males write these laws. Micro-aggressions, gender biases, homophobia or transphobia are largely unseen in this context.
Racist and sexist remarks are, in fact, covered by the first amendment.
While stalking can be difficult to prove, it is widely known to be a precursor of sexual assault. It is one of the pillars of the Violence Against Women Act and has led to more than $9 billion in Federal Funding to fight against domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
Having said what I did about white powerful men, let us recognize that President Joe Biden has signed into law, this week, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act for 2022, which passed with bipartisan support.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/many-sexual-assaults-follow-stalking
But What About…
Racist and sexist remarks can make its targets feel both psychologically and physically threatened. It’s surprisingly common in our society. Many argue that this speech should be banned under law. But is this an area covered by the First Amendment right to free speech?
Janet: But what about the guy who texts an underage girl, asking she send sexually explicit pictures of herself to him. And as it gets worse, he says it became a “submissive/dominant” relationship. She, whom he called a “caged butterfly,” went to her father.
In the subsequent legal proceedings, the guy was convicted. In his appeal, the defense claimed it was free speech not stalking and the statute used to convict him of stalking, was “over broad.”
Here's that statute that is not over broad and criminalizes stalking:
With the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that . . . causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress [to the victim.]
Anyone who has experienced a date or relationship going sideways and feels as if they are being followed or threatened, needs to know stalking is not gender specific. It is the actions of the stalker of any gender that distinguish free speech and stalking.
A Stalker Has No Gender
Ask Google ‘killed by a stalker’ and the page is full. Ex-wives stalk, ex-girlfriends stalk, college men stalk, dates stalk, and killers stalk.
Janet: In 1982 when my boss left a message on my voicemail that he knew people who he’d have kill me, was an action. It was electronic(telephonic) threat that caused substantial emotional distress, to me, the victim. What happened, nothing. There was “go with the flow” from police. My taped recording meant nothing.
Things have changed since 1982. You are protected by the law, but trust yourself. Be aware. Know the difference between free speech and stalking. Arm yourself with education. We found a resource specifically focused on this issue: https://victimconnect.org/learn/types-of-crime/stalking/
Marie: In her book License to Harass, Laura Beth Neilsen posits that while the law might not be the first line of defense for occurrences of offensive speech, First Amendment rights may sometimes present burdens that outweigh their benefits. It’s clear that in some cases, legal action seems too complicated to pursue. Racist and sexist remarks can make its targets feel both psychologically and physically threatened. It’s surprisingly common in our society. Many argue that this speech should be banned under law. But is this an area covered by the First Amendment right to free speech? Or should it be banned?
Nielsen argues: “racist and sexist speech creates, reproduces, and reinforces existing systems of hierarchy in public places. The law works to normalize and justify offensive public interactions, offering, in essence, a "license to harass.”
This is where community comes in. If you don’t have close family, you need to choose people to trust to build a network. Its value is to broaden a circle of friends that will believe you. And we can’t say it enough, document with date, time, and location. You must be the first line in your defense.
Our Silent Voice is a community of writers and survivors that have found release and pride in seeing their stories in print. Would you benefit from joining this community?
If you have a story to share you have the option to submit and chose to have us help you edit. We can hear you; we can include your story in our community.
Join our movement and use your free speech to be fierce, brave, and LOUD.