Tag Archives: harassment

Charlotte County Man Arrested after Filming Cops, Harrassing Witnesses

Ian McGuire

Charlotte County Deputies served a warrant today on Ian McGuire, accusing him of three counts of Harassing a Witness, two counts of Obstruction of Justice, and Breach of the Peace. McGuire showed up at an investigation in April and started filming deputies who were searching a warrant. They’d have a hard time charging him with anything related to that, due to his First Amendment protections. However, he took it a step farther by stepping into the crime scene area, arguing with Deputies, and allegedly mocking witnesses that were speaking to deputies. He has a First Amendment right to film public interactions, but he may have crossed the line if his words or actions interfered with the deputies’ lawful investigations (they were responding to a report of an aggravated battery). McGuire posted a 19 minute video of the incident, online. McGuire has previously been in the news for his activism.

Man Goes to Jail for a Facebook Like

A Pasco judge found a New Port Richey man in contempt of court for liking a Facebook post: someone had put his ex wife’s picture on a “father’s rights” page alleging that she was abusive. The judge found that he had violated her order against disparaging or threatening the other party in the family law case stemming from their divorce and custody fight. She initially sentenced him to 60 days, but relented a few days later for time served. The limits on social media, and regarding First Amendment ramifications, are something the courts have to grapple with more and more.

Police Harassment claims pop up in Dunbar

Less than a week after the chief of FMPD was fired, NBC-2 is reporting that residents and businesses in the Dunbar community are complaining about harassment. They are not revealing the name of the officer until they get more information, but it apparently has given enough concern that city councilman Streets has requested more information from the city manager. I’m passing it along, even without much detail, because the story sounds so familiar. Just today I had a client in my office expressing concerns about police activity similar to what multiple witnesses describe in the NBC-2 story.

Law Student Charged for Angry Statements, but Is She Constitutionally Protected

Anya Bargh mug shot

Anya Bargh mug shot

Connecticut Law Student Anya Bargh was arrested and charged with Harassment and breach of the peace for a series of online statements she has made. They were definitely in poor taste, some offensive, but there was not a pattern of conduct over time that would usually warrant a harassment charge. I won’t repeat them, but you can see what she said in the ATL story. We recently covered an injunction case in Lee County that was based on the new stalking law in Florida, and that speech was not found to constitute stalking by harassment. Speech, even offensive or critical speech, cannot be the basis for a crime: it is protected by the First Amendment. That speech won’t be protected if it is perceived as a threat.

Anya Bargh

Anya Bargh

Blogger Eugene Volokh does a good breakdown of the applicable statutes and Constitutional issues in this case. His conclusion, and one that is hard to legally disagree with, is that these words are protected speech, and cannot be criminalized under the Constitution. The analysis would be different in other countries. We may disagree with the statements of others, but unless they are making true threats, they have a right to share the offensive thoughts they might have. We, in turn, are permitted to vocalize our disagreement. That’s the way the founders set it up.

A small victory for freedom of speech

Imagine speaking out against a candidate or other public figure, and getting an injunction slapped on you! Not only do you no longer get to express your political views, but the injunctions also states you also must surrender your firearms, and appear at court to determine if the injunction should be permanent.  That scenario played itself out for Cape Coral resident, and outspoken political commentator, Paul Barnes yesterday. 

Mr. Barnes had been an outspoken critic on blogs and on the radio about Greg Eagle, and his son Dane Eagle, who was just elected to the Florida legislature.  Barnes supported the younger Eagle’s primary opponent, and has been critical of him since he supported Charlie Crist when Crist left the Republican ticket to run as an independent.  Greg Eagle has recently been front page news on his own, for allegations of mishandling and/or fraudulently handling a land trust, costing dozens of people their life savings.   Mr. Barnes was a frequent commenter on the related stories online, in addition to posts on Facebook and in other media. 

The issue came to a head a couple of weeks ago, as both Mr. Barnes and Greg Eagle were attending Octoberfest in Cape Coral, when they ran into each other.  Mr. Barnes approached Mr. Eagle, criticized him for his alleged wrongdoings in the real estate issue, and called him an expletive.  He followed up the next day with a similar email.  Mr. Eagle then filed for a stalking injunction under the Florida’s new stalking statute, and was granted a temporary injunction, pending hearing.

This stuck me as an improper attempt to chill politically motivated speech.  There are very few instances where speech can be restricted due to the protections of the First Amendment.  The most famous examples are “fighting words” or shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.  Conversely, criticism of a public figure or similarly politically motivated speech is exactly the sort of expression the First Amendment is designed to protect.  Consider my hypothetical at the beginning of this article: it’s offensive to our system of discourse and harmful to the democratic process.  Fortunately, Mr. Barnes had a right to have a hearing on the matter before the injunction was finalized.

Mr. Barnes was represented at the hearing by an excellent Fort Myers defense attorney, and friend of my firm, Aaron O’Brien.  Mr. O’Brien was able to convey the politically motivated background to the story that made it clear that an injunction was not appropriate.  Judge Carlin astutely recognized that this situation did not present a course of conduct that constituted illegal harassment so as to qualify as stalking, or to warrant an injunction, and the injunction was dismissed

I have previously criticized the stalking injunction statute for vagueness, and fortunately the judge did not allow the petitioner to use the statute for such a broad scope.  The provisions for injunction serve an important purpose for people who are being legitimately wronged by real harassment, but there is a risk that such a broadly worded law could potentially encompass lawful behavior, and especially politically motivated expression.  I may not agree with the way Mr. Barnes expressed his message, but it is paramount under our Constitution to protect his right to free speech.