This will be nasty & expensive for the cartoonist - sad`
Public figures have an infinitely low expectation of privacy, significantly higher burdens of proof to demonstrate libel, slander or invasion of privacy, and the smallest of ledges upon which to make their stand against critical comments, speeches, cartoons, lampoons, and any other form of expression regarding themselves in their professional capacity.
Trying to hitch their wagons on the "cyberstalking" law, which was most clearly NOT intended for this purpose, is ill-advised and IMHO a losing proposition.
But they will try. They will lean on the office of the prosecuting attorney and threaten to withdraw support, threaten "no confidence" votes and statements, and try to bully the prosecutor into anything they can. And will likely succeed.
Even though it's a losing case.
See, prosecutors can't get nailed for malicious prosecution unless it can be proven that the prosecution was initiated without probable cause.
They get to argue that because there's no precedent for a case like this, and because the alleged "criminal" behavior - posting the critical cartoons online - technically fits the largely-untested cyberstalking law, that there was probable cause to charge the offense...and, accordingly, they (prosecutors) are absolutely immune from charges of malicious prosecution.
The apparently crooked LEO's have found a way to get back at the cartoonist without any potential legal repercussions, and get their retaliation for free.
Meanwhile, the cartoonist has to pay a lawyer to fight for dismissal, and is punished financially for something that isn't a freaking crime in the first place.
The community needs to express its outrage at this nonsense, LOUDLY, and often.
Remember the folks who brought you these jerks, and vote for the other party next time.
Best wishes and hopes it doesn't ever come to fruition.
