DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Superseding indictment filed in Justin Shafer case

Posted on December 7, 2017 by Dissent

As anticipated, federal prosecutors have filed a superseding indictment in their case against dental integrator and vulnerability researcher Justin Shafer. For those in a rush, the TL;DR version is that they have basically transformed a bullshit two-count indictment into a bullshit three-count indictment.

[For the benefit of law enforcement in Texas, that preceding sentence is considered opinion and protected speech, as much as you may dislike it.]

The superseding indictment adds one more count of stalking to the previously filed two counts:

From on or about November 2016, the exact date being unknown, until on or about February, 2017, in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, the defendant, Justin Mark Shafer, with the intent to harass and intimidate a person and more than one person, used and attempted to use, interactive computer services, electronic communications systems of interstate commerce; internet websites, telephone and other facilities of interstate or foreign commerce, to engage in a course of conduct that caused and attempted to cause and was reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to JC and MK.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) & 2261(b).

Based on available information, “JC” appears to refer to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton, while “MK” likely refers to his judicial assistant, Margarita Koye.

So when you have a weak case where someone engaged in protected speech, just double down – throw more protected speech into the mix and claim that that protected speech was also an attempt to cause distress, right? Surely the more people who are upset by your speech, the more “victims” there are of “stalking,” right?

If I’m upset with you for months and email you for months, multiple times, to convey my distress and disgust with your behavior because your behavior is ongoing and continues to trouble me, isn’t that (still) protected speech?  I am not aware of any clause in the First Amendment that would suggest that speech is only protected if you say it less than X times.

So what, exactly, is Shafer alleged to have done that crossed the line from protected speech to “stalking” court personnel? And are we now going to rewrite the Constitution so that any time someone sends an angry or upset communication, we claim that they are attempting to cause distress and could reasonably expect to cause distress and are therefore stalking?  Has this country become a bunch of snowflakes?

Shafer’s attorney, Tor Ekeland, was not available for comment by the time of publication.

Category: Commentaries and AnalysesOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← MN: Mahtomedi Middle School student breaches district data
Sg: oBike reviewing app security after international user data lea →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • ICE takes steps to deport the Australian hacker known as “DR32”
  • Hearing on the Federal Government and AI
  • Nigerian National Sentenced To More Than Five Years For Hacking, Fraud, And Identity Theft Scheme
  • Data breach of patient info ends in firing of Miami hospital employee
  • Texas DOT investigates breach of crash report records, sends notification letters
  • PowerSchool hacker pleads guilty, released on personal recognizance bond
  • Rewards for Justice offers $10M reward for info on RedLine developer or RedLine’s use by foreign governments
  • New evidence links long-running hacking group to Indian government
  • Zaporizhzhia Cyber ​​Police Exposes Hacker Who Caused Millions in Losses to Victims by Mining Cryptocurrency
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • The Decision That Murdered Privacy
  • Hearing on the Federal Government and AI
  • California county accused of using drones to spy on residents
  • How the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Malaysia enacts data sharing rules for public sector
  • U.S. Enacts Take It Down Act

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.