When do annoying reporters become stalkers? A well-intentioned bill may blur that line.
"Your average activist - or independent reporter - can not easily afford the time and expense of getting a lawyer to defend themselves from spurious stalking charges pushed by a governor or a mayor."
“I have concerns about this bill,” said Representative Cherie Cruz at last night’s House Judiciary Committee meeting. House Bill 5655 would modify the stalking laws in Rhode Island, and “make it a misdemeanor to harass another person by following them and using an electronic device to record their movements in any public or private place.”
“When I read this bill, I thought it was a low barrier for journalists starting out, like Steve Ahlquist, who could follow a story with his camera and, under this, as I read it, potentially be accused of stalking. You don’t have to prove substantial fear or harm, just that someone is annoying.”
Representative Jason Knight noted that under the stalking laws in Rhode Island, the behavior would have to be repeated over time. The behavior can’t be just using your camera phone aggressively, added Representative Knight, it has to be “time and time and time again for no legitimate purpose, no First Amendment issues, no nothing. It’s just sheer, raw harassment that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.”
I wasn’t going to get into this bill, but since my name was used as an example of a journalist who might fall afoul of it, I figure I’ll add my two cents, but first let me make it clear that stalking is a serious crime, and following someone to harass and intimidate is unconscionable.
Personally, I feel somewhat protected by the parts of the laws against stalking that define the behavior as a course of conduct, something a person does over and over again with no legitimate purpose. I’m established and careful enough to believe such a charge will not be brought against me, and if one is brought against me, I will easily prove my innocence. I might annoy some politicians, but I don’t intend to harass or instill fear.
That said, as Representative Cruz alluded to, a new journalist might not be given the grace I’ve earned over the last ten years as I practiced and hopefully improved my craft. A new journalist might have the best intentions, but miscalculate or overreach, opening themselves up to harassment charges when they, for instance, wait outside restaurants for a politician (or a lobbyist, or a government worker) to exit, hoping to ask some questions. I’ve been in a position where I’ve had to run after a Mayor of Providence, a state representative accused of misconduct, and a Secretary of Housing who refused to answer my questions. (All actual examples.)
Activists sometimes use a strategy called bird-dogging, which is showing up where elected officials are going to be - a ribbon cutting, a press conference, a fund-raiser, or a town hall - and press the candidate, on camera, with questions they do not want to answer or provide good answers to. Such people may drive all over their state, tracking the elected official down and joining unfamiliar crowds intending to drop a banner, hold up signs, or ask impertinent questions. Though this behavior is possibly “rude” and considered out of order by the targeted elected official, in a free democracy, such actions are not only allowed but valuable and important, even when we might disagree with the activists’ politics.
The problem is, when you poke power, power will use any tools they have to poke back, and they will do so not just to curb one person’s behavior, they will do it to make an example so that other people will think twice before trying to approach them with “impertinent questions.” Your average activist - or independent reporter - can not easily afford the time and expense of getting a lawyer to defend themselves from spurious stalking charges pushed by a governor or a mayor. Every penny and minute I might spend in that situation is a resource and time I can’t spend doing my job. That would be a positive outcome for an unscrupulous politician, but a negative outcome for a free press and an informed electorate.
As I consider the implications of this bill, a second issue arises: A person recording police activities might be charged under this statute. During the Black Lives Matter protests a few years back, one of the best defenses activists had against retributive police violence was the use of cellphones to record encounters. I know from experience that police officers, like the rest of us, are more courteous and restrained when on camera.
We already have issues with police and attorneys general getting their hands on videos taken by private citizens - or even journalists - and then restricting public access to the video. [See here] Giving the police an option, however spurious, to intimidate or arrest someone with a camera is not good for our democracy.
During the House Judiciary hearing to pass this bill, Representative Knight noted that Rhode Island’s stalking laws are kind of a mess. Representative Knight spoke about trying to prosecute a stalking case and how he had difficulty deciphering the law. This tells me that the stalking laws need to be streamlined and made to make sense. Perhaps we’ll find that stalking, repeated conduct over time, can be defined to avoid First Amendment issues.
The committee passed the bill on an 8-4 vote. Now it goes to the House floor.
This was voted down, so what is the point of this?
Thanks for this ‘coverage’