Jilted Georgetown Law Applicant’s Cyberstalking Conviction Valid

The cyberstalking conviction of an applicant who was rejected by Georgetown Law was upheld by the Third Circuit Monday, despite his protestation that the federal cyberstalkiing statute violates the First Amendment.

Ho Yung blamed his rejection from Georgetown on the person who interviewed him and started a campaign to get back at him. He created false obituaries for the interviewer’s wife and son, made social media posts in the interviewer’s name littered with Ku Klux Klan content, and made a blog post in the interviewer’s name bragging about raping women and having sex with children.

Yung also posed as a female Georgetown applicant and posted on the school’s online forum that the interviewer groped her. He then filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, accusing the interviewer of assaulting a female associate and berating prospective employees.

The harassment continued when Yung created an online ad impersonating the interviewer’s wife, saying she was seeking a sex slave. The interviewer’s family was tormented at home because of the ad, the court said.

Yung pleaded guilty to violating the cyberstalking statute but reserved the right to challenge its constitutionality. He claimed it was facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

The cyberstalking statute applies when a defendant uses any computer or electronic communication service with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, when his actions cause an emotional response such as the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

The statute captures more speech than necessary, the opinion by Judge Stephanos Bibas said for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

But the intent element can be read to narrow the reach of the statute and saves it from being overbroad, the court said. Intimidation in can be limited to true threats and harassment to criminal harassment, which are already considered unprotected speech, it said.

Judges L. Felipe Restrepo and Jane R. Roth joined the opinion.

Peter Goldberger of Ardmore, Pa., and the Federal Public Defender’s Office represented Yung.

The case is United States v. Yung, 2022 BL 203034, 3d Cir., No. 19-1640, 6/13/22.