Posting names, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers and photographs on a personal website doesn’t violate an anti-harassment court order, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington decided last week. The case doesn’t involve animal rights, but it’s worth noting because the SHAC 7 were recently convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges for running a website with similar personal information.
Paul Trummel created the website to target anyone associated with the retirement home for low-income seniors where he once lived. Trummel had an ongoing feud with the head of the home, Stephen Mitchell, who Trummel says harassed him for publishing a newsletter, and entered his home without permission.
On his website, Trummel posted personal information and alleged employees and residents were linked to Islamic terrorists. Residents also said Trummel has spied on them, threatened them, and called them “disgusting runt” and profanities. Some said they feared being near Trummel in meetings, or in the elevator. This led to an anti-harassment court order against Trummel, and a lot of legal back and forth.
Unfortunately the court didn’t delve into the heart of this case: the first amendment implications. Instead, judges skirted the issue by saying the lower court’s anti-harassment order against “surveillance” by Trummel was “not broad enough to encompass the conduct of placing identifying information on a web site.”
That still has big implications for the SHAC 7. Trummel was prohibited from “attempting to keep under surveillance” anyone associated with the home. If addresses and social security numbers aren’t “surveillance,” that implies the information doesn’t take a gumshoe, or malicious intent, to round up.
But more importantly, the SHAC 7 trial was full of allegations of “harassment” and “intimidation,” and the government’s primary source of evidence was the organization’s website. If posting similar information doesn’t violate an anti-harassment court order — even with Trummel personally threatening residents at their homes — then it certainly is not a form of terrorism.