Search

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the 2012 caseUnited States v. Jones, laid a jurisprudential foundation for using mosaic theory to identify and address harms caused when innocuous bits of information are aggregated and used to invade the privacy of a targeted individual. Although mosaic theory has been applied almost exclusively in Fourth Amendment privacy cases, information mosaics can be used to facilitate online harassment. However, courts have not articulated frameworks for recognizing informational harms caused by mosaics. Additionally, although state cyberharassment laws exempt constitutionally protected informational uses from prosecution, neither state legislatures nor courts have articulated the extent of such protected activities in the cyberharassment context. Mosaic theory provides a useful theoretical and heuristic lens for understanding the limits of informational uses and harms in the cyberharassment context. Using the lens of mosaic theory, this article explores the ways information mosaics can be used to harass targeted individuals. The article concludes that states should pursue incremental modifications to their cyberharassment laws to address the harms caused by persistent, intentional, targeted uses of information mosaics against targets and that they better articulate frameworks for understanding which information-sharing activities are exempt from prosecution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Since the 1969 caseWatts v. United States,courts have consistently held that politically motivated speech about or directed to public figures may be punished if it qualifies as a “true threat” rather than protected political hyperbole. Criticism of public officials lies at the core of First Amendment protection, even when that criticism is caustic or crude. Such caustic speech appears on Twitter with increasing frequency, often pushing the boundaries of the constitutional guarantees of free speech. Through an analysis of the political speech-true threat cases that applyWatts,this study identifies and assesses three distinct modes of analysis that lower courts use to distinguish political speech from true threats. They are: (1) criteria-based analysis; (2)ad hocbalancing; and (3) a form of balancing referred to herein as “line-crossing analysis.” This study concludes that criteria-based analysis is the most prominent mode used by lower courts. As applied to new media and political participation, criteria-based analysis risks unduly restricting valuable political speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]