Bail was sharply reduced Tuesday for Paul Boyne, a Virginia man charged with internet stalking and whose prosecution for hurling years of attacks at Connecticut judges could test the limits of what constitutes protected speech under the first amendment.
Until his arrest in July, Boyne was notorious among the judiciary for posting venomous blog posts that used racist, antisemitic and homophobic terms to vilify judges and judicial appointees involved in divorce and custody cases.
Several judges have complained to state and federal authorities that they have come to fear that they or their family members could be the subject of attacks because Boyne has identified them, their homes and even the cars they drive. Often, in posts associated with photographs of judges or family members, the blog talks of a need to nurture liberty with the “blood of tyrants” and suggests that violence is a remedy available to disgruntled family court litigants.
Boyne has argued his blog commentary is constitutionally protected, regardless of how vile the content may be.
“The public/media has cause to note that insulting a state judge is protected under the First Amendment…,” one posting said. “Making nasty, vile, disgusting, vulgar, wretched commentary about the personal characteristics of a public official is just a day in the life of the home of the brave and the land of the free.”
Superior Court Judge Gerald L. Harmon reduced Boyne’s bail from $750,000 to $95,000 at a hearing in New Haven. Boyne, who is 62 and living on social security income, has been held in custody since his July arrest in Virginia on a warrant prepared by the Connecticut State Police and based on complaints by three Connecticut judges.
One of Boyne’s lawyers, Alice M. Osedach Powers, said Tuesday he is moving to dismiss the charges, arguing that whatever he said on his blog is protected commentary. Harmon gave State’s Attorney John Doyle until the end of April to respond.
Boyne is charged with 12 counts of stalking and two counts of electronic stalking, all felonies.
To be convicted of felony stalking, he must be proven to have “knowingly” engaged in conduct that would cause a “reasonable” person to fear for his physical safety or the safety of a loved one. It would have to be proven that Boyne did so with no legitimate purpose other than harassing, terrorizing or alarming on the basis of “race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.” The statute also prohibits the disclosure of a victim’s personal identifying information without a “legitimate” purpose.
The electronic stalking law makes it illegal to use a computer or internet system to stalk a victim with the intent to “kill, injure, harass or intimidate” and to put the victim, a family member or partner “in reasonable fear” of death or serious bodily injury.
Boyne, who formerly lived in Glastonbury, is said by associates to have become consumed by what he believes was unfair treatment in his divorce and custody case in the state family court system. He has lived for the last 17 years in Virginia.
He has been under near continuous investigation for more than five years. The charges now pending against Boyne were prepared by the Connecticut State Police detectives. After an earlier investigation that covered much the same ground, the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office in Connecticut decided against prosecuting.
Boyne is living with his parents outside Washington, DC. His lawyer said she is unsure whether his family will be able to secure a $95,000 bond. If released while awaiting trial, Harmon said a condition will be that he not threaten or otherwise harass people over the internet.