The complaint against Sziszak claims that the tweet caused the officer to “fear that harm will come to himself, family, and property.”
“As a 20 year old that simply retweeted a tweet to help my friend, I am now at risk of giving up my career, serving time, and having a record,” Sziszak wrote.
Strong defenses available
Sziszak’s retweet is “clearly protected by the First Amendment,” said Alan Peyrouton, Sziszak’s attorney, in an interview with Ars. “I’ve never had a case like this.”
Peyrouton points out that there’s caselaw in the Third Circuit—the federal judicial circuit that encompasses New Jersey—protecting the right to photograph public officials. He also points out that there are legitimate, non-harassing reasons to seek identifying information about a police officer. For example, Alfaro could have been interested in filing a formal complaint about the officer’s conduct.
And Eric Goldman, an Internet law scholar at Santa Clara University, tells Ars that people who merely retweeted the original tweet are likely to have another legal defense available: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Section 230 is most often invoked by online service providers like Twitter to shield them against liability for user content. But Section 230 says that “no provider or user” of an online service can be held responsible for another person’s content. If Sziszak merely retweeted Alfaro’s post, she should enjoy the same immunity Twitter does.