California Penal Code 653.2 PC makes it a crime to send electronic communications (such as emails or text messages) with the intent of placing the recipient in reasonable fear for his or her safety or that of his or her immediate family. This offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and fines of up to $1000.00.

The language of the code section states as follows:

653.2. (a) Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) For purposes of this section, “electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cell phones, computers, Internet Web pages or sites, Internet phones, hybrid cellular/Internet/wireless devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs), video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section 2510(12) of Title 18 of the United States Code.

(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:

(1) “Harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(2) “Of a harassing nature” means of a nature that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing of the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

This section was enacted by the California Legislature in 2008 that makes it a crime to post certain types of harmful information about other people on the internet. This crime is sometimes known as “electronic harassment” or “indirect cyber-harassment.”

Indirect electronic harassment is distinct from “direct electronic harassment” or cyberstalking under Penal Code 646.9 PC. With direct electronic harassment/cyberstalking, the defendant is the one who personally harassed or stalked the victim. ^1 2 3

But with indirect electronic harassment under PC 653.2, the defendant only needs to post information on the internet that will encourage other people to harass or stalk the victim.

The legal definition of indirect electronic harassment

The legal definition of posting harmful information on the internet under California Penal Code 653.2 is as follows:

1. You used an electronic communication device to electronically distribute, publish, email, hyperlink or make available for downloading personal identifying information or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person;
2. You did so without that person’s consent;
3. You did so with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his/her safety or the safety of his/her immediate family;
4. You did so for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury or harassment; and
5. The personal identifying information or message you shared would be likely to incite or produce that unwanted physical contact, injury or harassment.⁴

For purposes of California’s indirect internet harassment law, “harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting or seriously terrorizing that person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.⁵

“Electronic communication devices” include all of the following:

• Telephones;
• Cell phones;
• Computers;
• Internet web pages or sites;
• Internet phones;
• Personal data assistants (PDAs);
• Video recorders; and
• Fax machines.⁶

Penalties for posting harmful things on the internet

Indirect cyber-harassment under California Penal Code 653.2 PC is a misdemeanor in California.⁹

The penalties include:

• Misdemeanor (summary) probation;
• Up to one (1) year in county jail; and/or
• A fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000).¹⁰

Legal defenses

The most common legal defenses against charges of indirect electronic harassment/posting harmful information on the internet are related to the complicated intent requirements of this crime.

As we discussed above, you are only guilty of PC 653.2 if you intended both:

1. To place the alleged “victim” in reasonable fear for his/her safety or that of his/her immediate family; and
2. To cause a third party to injure, harass or make unwanted physical contact with the “victim.”¹¹

It is all too easy for a casual or humorous comment on the internet to be misunderstood. But unless you had the required criminal intent, you are not guilty of indirect internet harassment—even if something you posted or wrote led another person to harass someone else.

Claim alleges Todd Spitzer knew of his friend’s bad behavior but promoted him to one of the highest positions in the office

By TONY SAAVEDRA | tsaavedra@scng.com | Orange County Register

A fourth sexual harassment claim has been filed against a retired high-level prosecutor in Orange County, alleging that District Attorney Todd Spitzer witnessed the misbehavior but protected and even promoted the offender.

The newest claim, filed Tuesday, against Spitzer and former Senior Assistant District Attorney Gary Logalbo — Spitzer’s former roommate and best man at his wedding decades ago — typically is a precursor to a lawsuit. Attorney Matt Murphy, a former prosecutor, is representing the four claimants, all deputy district attorneys. Murphy spends much of the latest document blasting Spitzer for promoting to management his so-called best friend — known among veteran female employees as “Scary Gary.”

The claim says Spitzer’s tough talk against harassment in the workplace doesn’t apply to those closest to him and alleges he tried to retaliate against one of the four Jane Does who filed claims.

‘Denials’ and ‘victim blaming’

The accusations have been met with an “angry tone, denials and overt victim blaming” by Spitzer, said the claim.

“The reason people were so deeply reticent to complain of this behavior was not fear of Mr. Logalbo, but because they feared, and continue to fear, the well-documented wrath of Todd Spitzer,” said the document, which like the first three seeks unspecified damages.

Kimberly Edds, a spokeswoman for Spitzer, responded that the claim mischaracterizes the district attorney.

“We are incredibly disturbed by the allegations being made by several women in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. No one should have to suffer in silence and these women will be protected,” Edds wrote in a prepared statement Wednesday. “As soon as allegations of misconduct and inappropriate behavior came to our attention, we handled them immediately and lawfully. This fact is indisputable. … We do not need lawsuits to tell us to do the right thing. The right thing is already being done.”

Spitzer added that no official complaints were made against Logalbo — nor were any in his employment file — until November.

Logalbo was first promoted to management in 2019 and then to senior assistant district attorney in early November. Shortly afterward, the allegations against him began to surface, Spitzer has said. Logalbo resigned abruptly on Dec. 11. Spitzer has acknowledged his personal relationship with Logalbo, but denies he is his “best friend.”

Teen intern harassed?

The claim mentions another unnamed, extra-help prosecutor — a former volunteer in Spitzer’s 2018 election campaign — who allegedly harassed a 16-year-old intern. Jane Doe 4 witnessed the harassment and reported it to management, but Spitzer interceded on behalf of the prosecutor, the claim says. The alleged harasser was later “released from OCDA employment” after failing a second background check, Murphy wrote.

“Two men, each with personal relationships to the district attorney, acted with impunity when it came to the pervasive sexual harassment of at least four adult women and one teenage girl,” the document said.

The system worked

Edds responded that the system worked and the extra-help lawyer was let go.

As far as Logalbo, Jane Doe 4 describes one incident in which she was discussing a child annoyance case with him when he said, “Talking about all this sex stuff makes me horny.”

The document alleges that Chief Assistant District Attorney Shawn Nelson and Spitzer witnessed Logalbo’s misconduct but did nothing. Spitzer even raised Logalbo to the highest management post in the office, despite protests from supervisors aware of his antics, the claim said.

Before he left, Logalbo was allowed to conduct a promotion interview of one of the claimants, Jane Doe 2. She didn’t get the job.

Murphy, in the claim, also accused Spitzer of sidestepping government procedure and leaking the first three claims to the media in an effort to “control the narrative.” Edds, however, said the claims are public documents that must be released upon request. They were filed with the county and therefore public, Spitzer said.