As the Supremes get to ponder whether flaming nutjobs like Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church infamy gets to create misery and disgust in order to allow the rest of us to speak unmolested, a new contender for flamer of the year has arisen in Trenton, Michigan,   Her name is Jennifer Petkov.

Turley provides some details:

 There is a horrific story out of Michigan where a couple Scott and Jennifer Petkov are accused of a cruel campaign targeting a seven-year-old girl, Kathleen Edwards who is dying from Huntington’s disease. The Petkov’s alleged posted pictures showing Kathleen’s mother (Laura Edwards, who died of the disease last year at the age of 24) in the arms of the grim reaper and photo shopped a picture of Kathleen with her face above a set of crossed bones.

In addition to the pictures, the Petkovs allegedly allegedly drove their truck named the “Death Machine” up and down their street honking their horn. They later left the truck festooned with coffins in front of the Rose house (though they insisted it is just a Halloween decoration).

Witnesses say that the couple routinely laughed at Laura and her daughter for the neurological disease that causes involuntary writhing movements.

The Petkovs live next door to the Edwards.  Nice neighborhood, right.  And if you think Jennifer Petkov is less than ladylike on paper, she’s even more unpleasant on video.

Taking a glance at 7-year old Kathleen Edwards in the video, one comes to appreciate, again, the cost of free speech.  No sane person can watch this and not be outraged at this sick, disgusting woman.  But the harm of her words and deeds isn’t to us, but to a child.  We suffer outrage.  Kathleen Edwards just suffers.  It compels the question, who are we to say that she must pay the price?

Yet we rationally know that the Fred Phelps, the Jennifer Petkovs of the world are the testing grounds for speech, painful as it is.  Worse still, we rationally know that there are plenty more where they come from.

We can condemn these people for what they say, but it rings awfully hollow.  Turley asks whether there’s some harassment-type crime here, given Petkovs apparent intention of causing harm to this child.  Certainly it’s deliberate and likely to cause pain to a dying seven year old.  While personal protection orders have issued, no arrests were made. 

The question is what criminal or civil liability the Petkovs could face. They have a constitutional right to be horrible people. However, their first amendment rights are limited in cases of harassment, stalking, and other crimes. The most obvious criminal charge would be any violation of the restraining order. Such orders generally do not include limitations on speech such as Facebook sites and public statements. The truck could be an issue if parked within the protected zone. I do not believe Michigan has a cyber-bullying statute. What I am unclear about is why the police did not pursue this as a child abuse case, if it is true that the Petkovs confronted the little girl. If that account is false, there remains the campaign directly against the little girl as a possible abuse or stalking case.

The most obvious course for the Rose family would be a civil lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is probably not an action for privacy violations here, such as intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of embarrassing private acts. Likewise, words alone are generally insufficient for assault. However, what is fascinating about the case is Jennifer Petkov’s admission that she wanted to harm the Rose family in taking these actions.

It appears that the Michigan harassment statute addresses personal confrontation rather than intentional harm caused from a distance.  The statute’s definition of “stalking” may apply.

(d) “Stalking” means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.

Whether Petkovs conduct meets the proscription is another matter.  Whether the prohibition can constitutionally apply to this speech is yet another question.

While it’s hard to imagine that Jennifer Petkov (or anyone) can hold such malicious and sick beliefs, we know there to be such people around and it’s our rights tested via their diseased mouths.  Even they get to speak, as much as we might like to personally explain to them why we would prefer they not exist.

Before closing, it should be noted that Petkov has since had an epiphany and now realizes that she was wrong.  She apologizes.  No doubt she’s very sincere and that makes it all go away.