Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 6216 17 Statute of Liberty An abusive husband changes his Facebook status to “widowed.” Another abuser, on the day his girlfriend is granted a restraining order, posts a photo of a gun and a not-so-veiled threat. A third, his account blocked from his ex’s social media pages, creates false profiles—in the names of family members—so he can continue a very disturbing campaign of threats and harassment. Thousands of women and men in abusive relationships are threatened and stalked on social media every day. So when longtime pro bono client Jane Doe Inc. and several other support and advocacy organizations—the Women’s Bar Association, Women’s Bar Foundation, National Network to End Domestic Violence, and National Center for Victims of Crime— approached Mintz Levin to write an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief on their behalf in a case involving cyberstalking, attorneys Sandra Badin, Lyzzette Bullock, and John Nucci, and former Mintz Levin attorney Helen Guyton, volunteered. Commonwealth v. Michael Walters raised the question of whether threats delivered through social media channels like Facebook can be considered threats under Massachusetts law— specifically under its stalking statute. Communications that qualify as threats under that statute may lead to possible criminal prosecution. The law was written before social media channels like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram existed, but through their research, the Mintz Levin team found that the application of the statute has evolved with the introduction of new communication technologies—suggesting that communications delivered via social media should also be covered by the law. The stakes were high. If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had decided that posts on Facebook and other social media networks should not be covered by the statute, it would have been difficult to protect victims of domestic abuse from threats of violence made through these popular channels. That outcome would have been tragic, given that threats and stalking are reliable predictors of physical violence, according to the team’s research. The case also raised the question of whether threats made on Facebook that are not specifically directed to their intended targets—including threats posted on stalkers’ pages but not their victims’ pages—should still be considered threats. “Even strong proponents of the First Amendment would agree that a threat, intended as such, is not protected,” Sandra said, “but they are more likely to want to protect statements that, while not obviously threatening— because, for example, they are not specifically directed to their intended targets or are not explicitly threatening—may yet be reasonably interpreted and understood as threats in their proper context.” “Ever-changing technology is used by abusers in alarm- ing and dangerous ways as demonstrated in the case of Commonwealth v. Walters. Once again Mintz Levin used its legal expertise and resources to promote survivor safety and offender account- ability in partnership with the sexual and domestic violence advocacy community.” Debra J. Robbin, Ed.M. Executive Director Jane Doe Inc. continued