You may have read in the Globe on December 24th that
the SJC upheld the conviction of an Andover couple who harassed a neighbor via
the internet. In Commonwealth v. William P. Johnson decided on December
23rd, The
Johnsons were charged on October 16, 2008, in Lawrence District Court with
making a false report of child abuse (G.L. c. 119, § 51A [c ] );
identity fraud (G.L. c. 266, § 37E); conspiracy (G.L. c. 274, § 7); and
criminal harassment (G.L. c. 265, § 43A [a ] ). It all started when the
Johnsons proposed to subdivide their land and their neighbors James (“Jim”) and
Bernadette Lyons opposed the development.
In either late February or early March, 2008, William Johnson telephoned
his friend Colton “and enlisted him to play a series of ‘pranks’ on Jim. The
ideas for these ‘pranks’ were generated in several ways: (1) William would
directly instruct Colton or convey ideas through Gail; (2) the Johnsons would
provide information about the Lyons family to Colton so that he could use this
information to harass them; or (3) the Johnsons would prompt Colton to think of
ideas. Over the course of thirty-five days in late March and early April, 2008,
the defendants, directly and through Colton, engaged in a series of acts
directed at the Lyons family. The Commonwealth alleged four separate acts of
harassment in addition to the false report of child abuse…” Com. v. Johnson,
No. SJC-11660, 2014 WL 7261476, at *2 (Mass. Dec. 23, 2014). The defendants
also posted fake ads on the internet that caused numerous people to call or go
to the Lyonses home or call them late at night.
William Johnson was sentenced to 18 months behind
bars; his wife was given a six-month sentence to serve.
We have seen circumstances when citizens who are
opposed to a development have engaged in smear campaigns on social networks.
And the Johnson decision will cut both ways when opponents to a project
go beyond protected free speech and engage in harassment.
Paul F. Alphen, Esquire
Alphen & Santos, P.C.
