Isabel Vinson v. Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, et al.: Black Lives Matter Supporter Challenges Vermont Criminal Law Banning Electronic Communications That “Annoy” or “Disturb” Others.

Complaint

It is not a crime to speak out against another’s political speech. But that didn’t stop police in Brattleboro, Vermont from handing a criminal citation to Isabel Vinson after she posted Facebook comments criticizing a local businessman’s “All Lives Matter” post under Vermont’s “disturbing the peace by electronic communication” statute. The law, among other things, makes it a crime to “harass” or “annoy” another via telephone or internet with speech that is “indecent” or “disturbs.” It also allows judges, juries, and police to ignore the speaker's intent. FIRE is joining with the ACLU to challenge the statute on behalf of Isabel because its overbroad and vague language encompasses a vast amount of protected online speech.

In the days following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Isabel Vinson, like many others, took to social media to express her outrage. As she perused her Facebook feed, she noticed that a local businessman posted a meme saying “How about all lives matter…Put your race card away and grow up.” She copied the post on her own Facebook profile and described it as “Disgusting…no matter how many people try and tell him it’s wrong he doesn’t seem to care.” A conversation thread ensued, with Vinson and others further criticizing the businessman and his business. She also tagged his profile to a Facebook group for shaming what she believed was racist speech.

Whatever one thinks of Isabel or the businessman’s speech, their statements are protected by the First Amendment, as Supreme Court decisions make clear. But, when the businessman called the police about Isabel’s speech, the police criminalized Isabel’s words, violating the First Amendment. 

After eventually convincing the police to drop the charge, Isabel decided to fight back to ensure she and others can express their opinions freely without the threat of criminal consequences. In January 2022, on Isabel’s behalf, the ACLU challenged the Vermont statute because it regulates a substantial amount of protected speech with relatively few permissible applications, using indefinite and confounding language — making it impossible for individuals or police to understand the conduct it actually prohibits.

No one should fear criminal consequences for responding to a political Facebook post, having public discussions with friends, or “tagging” someone’s profile. On October 16, 2023, FIRE and the ACLU moved for summary judgment on Isabel’s claims, asking the court to make sure Vermont does not use its statute to target protected online communications in the future.