Comments on: Sending Emails Isn’t Workplace Stalking–People v. Marian https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/07/sending-emails-isnt-workplace-stalking-people-v-marian.htm Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Michael Risch https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/07/sending-emails-isnt-workplace-stalking-people-v-marian.htm#comment-1343 Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:01:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=14510#comment-1343 Without commenting on the policy or the cyberspace as place debate, I think this ruling is troubling from a strict statutory interpretation standpoint. Telephoning OR initiating communication OR contact at the place of business is outlawed. I see only two ways to read this:
1. Telephoning and initiating communication are not modified by “at the place of business” in which case, sending an email is initiating communication and satisfies the statute

2. telephoning and initiating communication ARE modified by “at the place of business” which means that “at the place of business” which could gut the statute as to telephoning and other communications. Most strictly, limiting only to telephone calls made at the workplace can’t be what the legislature meant, so incoming communications have to count. So, then, the court is saying that because the email box can be opened up somewhere other than at the physical location, it doesn’t count. But that’s absurd. People can have calls forwarded to their cell phones. Are those now excluded? What if their cell phones are their business phones? What if someone take their mail home to open it up? Does mailing it to the workplace suddenly fall outside the statute? What if the evidence were that you could only read email at the workplace? What if the emails were sent to a supervisor “at the place of business.” Does the court even ask that question? All in all, a very weak statutory interpretation analysis.

]]>