People Should Not Use the Legal System to Silence Critics, Part II (Opinion)

“Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel” is an old saying which basically states you shouldn’t pick a fight with the news media. Today that quote should probably be revised to include online media, especially YouTube Twitter X, and revised to include satire sites in addition to the news media. However, just to prove a point as to how absurd a bill is which was recently introduced in Maryland legislature, I’m removing all names from this article.

Well, it’s been an interesting year so far, and the First Amendment is under attack in Maryland more than ever before. Between a vague bill titled “Criminal Law – Unauthorized Dissemination of Personal Identifying Information,” and the owner of a Maryland satire site finding himself facing criminal charges for a satirical post on X (that’s formerly Twitter in case you didn’t know), I’m reminded yet again why I made my original opinion article on this topic.

First up, House Bill 555, which happens to be sponsored by one of our own local delegates (while I consider the delegate a friend and doubt she’d have any issue with me naming her as a sponsor of the bill, I’m removing all names from this article just to prove a point). In short, this bill would prohibit the unauthorized dissemination of personal identifying information with the intent to intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, or frighten another person. However, where this bill falls short is its nonexistent definition of personal identifying information or the terms intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, or frighten. While it sounds like a good idea at face value, in practice it becomes quite dangerous to anyone expressing an opinion about a public figure. As written, a person could possibly be charged with a crime for merely writing online about a person by mentioning their name (which is personal identifying information), and the person claiming that they felt intimidated or harassed by the post.

Probably one of the most recent examples of where this could be demonstrated as a horrible idea is the pending charges against the owner (whose name I’ve removed from this article) of the a Maryland satire site. The satire site (whose name I’m not going to mention because it might somehow be considered personally identifiable information) is a satire site for Tacoma Park, much like The Hagerstown Report is for Hagerstown (and yes, The Hagerstown Report is part of Radio Free Hub City). Apparently, the owner of the site found himself awoken at 1 AM by the a Sheriff’s Department (I removed which one because that indicates what part of Maryland he lives in), facing a peace order and criminal charges because he criticized a well known Maryland political blogger (whose name I’ve also removed from this article) in a satirical tweet (is it even called a tweet anymore? Dammit OWNER OF X WHOSE NAME I REMOVED you got me all confused here). While the current charges likely won’t stick (and hopefully will be withdrawn), had these charges been filed after HB555 becomes law, they would be much more difficult to defend. And that’s a serious problem. I reached out to the owner of the satire site to see if he’d be interested in RFHC doing a more in-depth story as well as offered to file an amicus brief in his defense, and if he replies in the affirmative we’ll be happy to do so.

Of course, if you don’t include any personally identifying information, the bill does not apply, so even if many people know I’m writing this article and mentioning a well known Maryland political blogger, as long as I don’t mention him by name then there’s no legal basis for him to come after me, even under the proposed bill. This same blogger I used to consider a friend until he claimed that the adverse effects of the COVID vaccine I was experiencing was a pre-existing condition, and that I was “spreading misinformation about the COVID vaccine”, even though all I’ve ever done is share what happened with my vaccine injury, and encouraged others to make fully informed decisions before taking the COVID vaccine.

I’ve written previously about how Maryland anti-SLAPP laws are great from a civil standpoint, but do nothing to defend against baseless criminal accusations. HB555 would only make this worse, and honestly make me nervous about posting any story which might mention someone by name – because even if my intent was not to harass or intimidate, I’ll need to worry about proving that wasn’t my intent in court. This is wrong. Someone shouldn’t be able to get the courts to do their dirty work for them just because someone else on the internet said mean things about them. Think about this for a second, if I were to publish an opinion article about a local politician and name them by name, they could claim my article was “harassing them” and file criminal charges. And under HB555, just because I used the person’s name, the charges would likely stick. That’s terrifying.

I understand the intent behind HB555, and I’m okay with what it’s trying to accomplish. But as it is currently written, it is far too vague and poses the risk of creating much more legal headaches for satirists and journalists alike. Just like many other well-intentioned bills, such as the recently filed bill to rename public property (which was also filed by a local delegate whose name was removed from this article) named after historical figures associated with the Confederacy, this bill will have unintended consequences that will be far reaching.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler, President of RFHC. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our sponsors. Stay tuned for our legal defense GoFundMe, if someone decides to make a frivolous or baseless claim that this opinion article is somehow harassment, even though we didn’t even mention any names.