• Washington’s New Stalking Protection Order (SPO)

    In 2012 I testified before the Washington State Legislature regarding the creation of a new kind of protection order for victims of stalking. The Bill was considered because there was no protection for victims of stalking, that occurred outside of Domestic Violence. I felt it was important for the Order to also include cyberstalking. The… Continue Reading

  • Laws Expressive Value in Combating Gender Cyber Harassment

    This is a wonderful article for the Michigan Law Review on gender and cyber harassment. It discusses how the impact and goal of the use of Cyber harassment on women, is primarily economic; that is to remove them from their careers or keep them from succeeding in their chosen fields. It also states that enforcement of cyberstalking is similar to enforcement of domestic violence 50 years ago; it is poorrly understood by law enforcement.

  • Why Laws are Broken: Into the Silence

    I came across an interesting statement that described the most common reasons someone, or an entity, chooses to break the law:
    Usually it comes out of some form contempt for the victim; namely that she will be powerless to prevent it, and they feel she has it coming to her.

  • What Does a Criminal Sentence Mean to a Cyberstalker?

    After nearly 3 years of finding my name, distorted medical history, personal,and family history posted online by my convicted cyberstalker, or through 3rd parties associated with him, I have begun to wonder, what the criminal investigation and charges really meant? So I looked once more at his Plea, that is, the charges he agreed to accept responsibility for, and the terms of that plea

  • Court: Cyberbullying Threats Are Not Protected Speech

    Because I am a victim of a convicted cyberstalker, (King County Superior Court Criminal Case No. 10-1-10211-2, and anti-harassment Order No. 10-2-04392-60), these issues come up frequently, so I am learning quite a bit about protected speech and Cyberstalking/Cyberbullng.
    “A California appeals court ruled this week that threatening posts made by readers of a website are not protected free speech, allowing a case charging the posters with hate crimes and defamation to proceed.