Amy Klobuchar: “I want to briefly comment on an issue that has been raised by some with respect to the stalking provisions in the bill.…”

“I want to briefly comment on an issue that has been raised by some with respect to the stalking provisions in the bill. Some outside observers have questioned whether the language in the bill would chill free speech or even criminalize constitutionally protected speech. Obviously, that was not the intent of the language and I do not believe that would be the impact. In fact, a statute cannot criminalize constitutionally protected speech. If it is protected under the Constitution, then it is protected, plain and simple. The stalking provision is intended to make our anti-stalking laws more effective. The problem with current law is that we require a victim to actually suffer from substantial emotional distress in order for the perpetrator to be prosecuted. But sometimes victims are not even aware that they are being stalked, especially if the stalker is using electronic surveillance, video surveillance, or other technology that is specifically designed for spying. So a stalker who is using technology to stalk his victim can escape prosecution simply because he goes undetected by the victim. That does not make sense to me. With the provision in the bill, we allow law enforcement and prosecutors to focus on the stalker's actions, and not just the victim's emotions. This will allow prosecutions if the perpetrator is caught before the victim has suffered the necessary level of emotional distress.…”