Spofford's Free Speech Defense Falls Flat In NHPR Stalking Case

By Damien Fisher, NH Journal

Charged with harassing New Hampshire Public Radio journalists, Eric Spofford’s attempt to become a free speech champion did not end well.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani last week rejected Spofford’s motions to have the federal stalking case against him dismissed. Spofford argued the law used to charge him violates the First Amendment.

Spofford’s attorney, Robert Goldstein, does not admit to any wrongdoing on his client’s part in the motions to dismiss. Instead, Goldstein hypothetically argues that if Spofford paid $10,000 to his associates to vandalize the home of the New Hampshire Public Radio reporter who uncovered allegations of sexual misconduct, it’s no different from posting a bad review of a restaurant online or writing an angry comment about a politician.

Spofford is currently free on $1 million bail after being indicted on multiple federal criminal counts for the alleged harassment campaign aimed at NHPR’s Laura Chooljian. The case is being prosecuted in U.S. District Court in Boston.

According to court records, Spofford had his friend and associate Eric Labarge manage the harassment against Chooljian, her family, and NHPR editor Dan Barrick. Labarge hired underlings Tucker Cockerline, Michael Waselchuck and Keenan Saniatan to spray-paint the word “C*NT” on the homes and throw bricks through the windows, according to court records. Labarge, Cockerline, Waselchuck, and Saniatan all pleaded guilty to federal charges for their roles in the scheme in 2024.

Spofford was arrested last year after he allegedly supplied Labarge with the addresses of the homes to be targeted, as well as $10,000 in cash to fund the operation.

Goldstein argues that using the federal law against stalking, 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A, to charge Spofford is an overreach akin to criminalizing overwrought social media posts.

“For example, as the Third Circuit has observed, ‘[r]anting in the comments section of a website that a senator voted to lock refugee kids in cages could well constitute ‘harassment’ under a broad definition of that term, and thus satisfy the facial language of [the law.] Even ‘negative restaurant reviews left on Google or Yelp, irate emails sent to service providers (contractors, plumbers, etc.), . . . or antagonistic comments left on news sites are often persistently annoying or even scary. Each might satisfy the statute’s act and intent elements, read broadly, and (depending on the recipient’s reaction) the result element too,” Goldstein wrote.

But Talwani made short work of the motions, writing that Spofford’s legal team presents no case to back up its motions. Citing a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the law, Talwani wrote that the anti-stalking law isn’t about free speech.

“The First Circuit held that the statute ‘regulates not speech, but conduct — or, to be precise, courses of conduct,’” Talwani wrote.

Along with the alleged harassment, Spofford brought an unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against NHPR over the unflattering coverage. According to a March 2022 bombshell report by Chooljian, multiple women claimed Spofford used his position as CEO of Granite Recovery to sexually harass or sexually assault them.

Spofford sold Granite Recovery in 2022 and now splits his time between New Hampshire and Florida.

This story was originally published by the NH Journal, an online news publication dedicated to providing fair, unbiased reporting on, and analysis of, political news of interest to New Hampshire. For more stories from the NH Journal, visit NHJournal.com.