Video-teleconference hijacking know as Zoom-bombing disrupts meetings at a time during the pandemic that the public and government agencies depend on Zoom to conduct business. Much of the conduct violates First Amendment rights, but it important to distinguish that which is truly unlawful and disruptive from other that may be protected discourse. It is unlawful to invade a pass-word-protected video conference meeting, but rather than targeting expressive speech, the prosecution could proceed on the grounds that the invader was acting “without authorization” and violated Zoom’s terms of service so long as the speech meets the Supreme Court definitions for protected speech. Unprotected speech would include “true threats.” Prosecution involving threats and profanity might best be conducted focusing on disruptive conduct rather than the content of the speech. (LawFare, April 24, 2020, by Rachel Bercovitz)
Law professor Eugene Volokh, Reason, April 4, 2020, writes that in dealing with Zoom-bombers, it is important to bear in mind that the laws must apply in a content-neutral way and that a government-organized Zoom meeting may not exclude participants based on viewpoint or the viewpoint of their heckling.
Law professor Ronald K.L. Collins, FIRE, April 29, 2020, poses a number of questions those conducting government Zoom meetings should consider to avoid censorship.