Supreme Court Guts Protections for Cyberstalking Victims (fastcompany.com) 147
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that in order to find someone guilty of making a "true threat" courts must first determine that the person recklessly disregarded the fact that their words might be perceived as threats. From a report: Experts fear the decision will create new hurdles for victims of cyberstalking by requiring them to first prove that their stalkers understand the consequences of their actions. "The Supreme Court has just decreed that stalking is free speech protected by the First Amendment if the stalker genuinely believes his actions are non-threatening," tweeted Mary Anne Franks, a professor at George Washington Law School and president of the nonprofit Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. "That is, the more deluded the stalker, the more protected the stalking."
The case, Counterman v. Colorado, concerns a man named Billy Raymond Counterman, who was convicted under a Colorado anti-stalking law, after he sent a barrage of threatening Facebook messages to a woman he'd never met. The Colorado law didn't require the court to consider Counterman's mental state when he sent the messages. It only had to consider his behavior and how it was objectively received, that is, whether he repeatedly contacted, followed, or surveilled his target in a way that would cause a "reasonable person" distress. Counterman was found guilty under that statute, but he appealed his conviction, arguing that his statements were protected by the First Amendment and did not constitute "true threats," a category of speech that falls outside the bounds of the First Amendment, because it wasn't his intention to threaten his target. In its decision, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with Counterman.
The case, Counterman v. Colorado, concerns a man named Billy Raymond Counterman, who was convicted under a Colorado anti-stalking law, after he sent a barrage of threatening Facebook messages to a woman he'd never met. The Colorado law didn't require the court to consider Counterman's mental state when he sent the messages. It only had to consider his behavior and how it was objectively received, that is, whether he repeatedly contacted, followed, or surveilled his target in a way that would cause a "reasonable person" distress. Counterman was found guilty under that statute, but he appealed his conviction, arguing that his statements were protected by the First Amendment and did not constitute "true threats," a category of speech that falls outside the bounds of the First Amendment, because it wasn't his intention to threaten his target. In its decision, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with Counterman.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The law is about balancing justice for all parties. The actual opinion of the case does that - no matter what politically-slanted pundits at Fast Company may think of it.
Re: (Score:3)
The dissents in the case were from Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas. I'm not sure anyone would describe them as "the two strong leftist judges", but their concerns were primarily about the impacts on potential victims.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not sure anyone would describe them as "the two strong leftist judges""
You're replying to just such a person, who's either illiterate, an idiot or both
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I know someone who is a victim of a cyberstalker and the legal system was already completely hopeless at stopping cyberstalkers, so it's not encouraging to see it losing whatever morsel of capability it may have had.
Alternate Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alternate Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the court got it right here, but it's not quite so simple as you suggest.
The texts in question wouldn't pass a "reasonable person" test -- that is to say a reasonable person would feel threatened by them. And the rights people enjoy aren't just the ones listed in the Bill of Rights -- says the Bill of Rights. Those non-enumerated rigghs includes the right to your reputation, the right of privacy, the right not to be threatened. All of these non-enumerated but equally Constitutional are the basis for some major limitation on speech. So the Court has to strike a balance.
The problem here is what lawyers call "mens rea". This guy didn't have the mental capacity to understand that his texts were threatening. It's really unfortunate that this woman had to put up with this, but outlawing people from doing things they *didn't intend to do* isn't going to fix anything.
Re:Alternate Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the court got it right here, but it's not quite so simple as you suggest.
The texts in question wouldn't pass a "reasonable person" test -- that is to say a reasonable person would feel threatened by them. And the rights people enjoy aren't just the ones listed in the Bill of Rights -- says the Bill of Rights. Those non-enumerated rigghs includes the right to your reputation, the right of privacy, the right not to be threatened. All of these non-enumerated but equally Constitutional are the basis for some major limitation on speech. So the Court has to strike a balance.
The problem here is what lawyers call "mens rea". This guy didn't have the mental capacity to understand that his texts were threatening. It's really unfortunate that this woman had to put up with this, but outlawing people from doing things they *didn't intend to do* isn't going to fix anything.
Surely this has to work for 'misgendering' and crap like that as well.
You can't just let people decide, after the fact, what counts as 'threatening' or 'violent' language. 'Wrong' pronouns is a choice that the listener has made. It may well be that the speaker *intends* to threaten by misgendering, but that *must* pass the 'reasonable person' test.
Otherwise, literally any communication could be labelled as threatening, after the fact, and prosecuted. And, at that point, you may as well just ban all communication completely because SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, at SOME TIME might find it threatening.
Re:Alternate Headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yeah. But note carefully the intent argument cuts both ways: if you misgender someone with *intent* of threatening them, then that *is* a threat. If you misgender them because you don't understand that's offensive, it's just being rude.
Suppose I leave a noose on your front porch. Is that a threat? It depends on my intent. If I'm helping you stage an adaptation of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge I'm doing you a favor. If I'm leaving it to send you a message that people like you shouldn't live here that's a threat. If I intended the former, but accidentally left it on the porch of the black family next door, that's a *really* unfortunate accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. But note carefully the intent argument cuts both ways: if you misgender someone with *intent* of threatening them, then that *is* a threat. If you misgender them because you don't understand that's offensive, it's just being rude.
Suppose I leave a noose on your front porch. Is that a threat? It depends on my intent. If I'm helping you stage an adaptation of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge I'm doing you a favor. If I'm leaving it to send you a message that people like you shouldn't live here that's a threat. If I intended the former, but accidentally left it on the porch of the black family next door, that's a *really* unfortunate accident.
exactly.
Re:Alternate Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
NO.....NO it is not!!
Calling someone he when they "prefer" she...is not a threat.
It is no more of a threat than calling Sally by the name of Susie....or Barney.
These are fucking words.
Words themselves are not threats..speech is not violence unless, they are explicit threats.
Misgendering a person is not a threat.....telling someone you are going to kill them IS a threat.
When did we lose sense of the obvious.
It is not against the law to insult someone...whether by perception, accident or on purpose.
Calling someone an asshole is no more a threat than calling. someone a she that prefers the pronoun thee.
I don't care what someone wants to call themselves...its a free country.
But, being that it is a free country, don't expect me to play your game.
Freedom of speech, pretty much by necessity means there is NO freedom from being offended.
Do not conflate insults with threats.
Re: (Score:2)
For once you are right. Misgendering isn't a threat, it's just an aggravation to threats. As in, if you make a true threat and are prosecuted for it, the fact that you were motivated by hatred of trans people can be an aggravating factor that leads to a longer sentence.
Same as if you threaten someone because you hate their race. Calling them the n-word isn't a threat, but it can be an aggravating factor if you are convicted of threatening them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling someone he when they "prefer" she...is not a threat.
That's not what Hey said. Hey said that misgendering someone with the intent of threatening them was a threat.
For example, let's consider the hypothetical case of cis-man Albert talking about trans-man Bob. If Albert accidentally, or even deliberately, uses "she" when referring to Bob, it's not a threat. But if Albert publicly says "If I ever see her alone in a dark alley, I'll prove to her that she's a woman." with the intent of making Bob scared to walk alone at night, that's a threat.
Words themselves are not threats..speech is not violence unless, they are explicit threats.
This is just nons
Re: (Score:2)
I find this to be insulting and heterophobic
No you don't; you're trying to co-opt language you've seen used by left-wingers. Well, actually, you're probably just copying Elon Musk, or Jordan Peterson, or one of the other idiots doing this same thing on Twitter. But either way, you're arguing in bad faith... I guess as a form of vice-signalling to make sure no one can doubt that you have no respect for trans people. But you don't need to bother; everyone already knows that about you.
Re: (Score:2)
More like them co-opting language period.
It's akin to people calling us Americans for most all of history and in recent years, trying to use the term "USians"...
No need to change what a normal man is called....we're not cis.
We're men.
If you want to call a woman trying to be a man some form of man, THEN ok...make up a new term for them...I think it is trans-man?
But a real life, DNA, born male man is simply...a MAN.
Trying t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. But note carefully the intent argument cuts both ways: if you misgender someone with *intent* of threatening them, then that *is* a threat. If you misgender them because you don't understand that's offensive, it's just being rude.
You're conflating act (called actus reus [wikipedia.org]) and intent (called mens rea [wikipedia.org]). While both are typically requirements of a crime, courts consider them separately, for good reasons.
In this case, whether or not the statement was threatening is not dependent on what the speaker intended, only on what the hearer understood. More precisely, what a "reasonable person" in the hearer's position would have understood. In most cases, I don't think a reasonable person would understand simple misgendering to be a threat of v
Re: (Score:2)
You're awfully upset about other peoples genitals dude, maybe take some deep breaths and turn off the news.
It isn't about peoples genitals.
Its about people forcing others to use their jargon.
Re: Forced jargon (Score:2)
It isn't about peoples genitals. Its about people forcing others to use their jargon.
By that logic, it should be perfectly fine to publicly refer to Blacks using the n-word. After all, why should I be forced to use their jargon when using words to describe them?
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't about peoples genitals.
Its about people forcing others to use their jargon.
By that logic, it should be perfectly fine to publicly refer to Blacks using the n-word. After all, why should I be forced to use their jargon when using words to describe them?
My kid at school has a 'black' friend. He got told he had a pass to use the N word. So I guess thats all good!
Re: (Score:3)
Its about people forcing others to use their jargon.
It is actually about being allowed to exist. You don't want certain people to exist, but for some reason lack the spine to actually say those words out loud.
Re: (Score:2)
Its about people forcing others to use their jargon.
It is actually about being allowed to exist. You don't want certain people to exist, but for some reason lack the spine to actually say those words out loud.
If peoples very existence depends on other people using their jargon, then.... they really do need help.
And using their jargon won't help them, not with their actual problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, who is being prosecuted just for not using the right jargon?
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares? If I tell you to leave me alone it shouldn't matter why.
You obviously feel picked on for your bullying behaviors. "I didn't touch you!"
Stop drawing stupid lines in the sand for everyone else. Make it easy to block an individual (not an identity). The government has abdicated their previous duty (legal identification) online. Nobody trusts identification from any other source.
Also make it easier to share proof of previous behaviors. The past only influences us because we're bound by it. And
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? If I tell you to leave me alone it shouldn't matter why.
You obviously feel picked on for your bullying behaviors. "I didn't touch you!"
Stop drawing stupid lines in the sand for everyone else. Make it easy to block an individual (not an identity). The government has abdicated their previous duty (legal identification) online. Nobody trusts identification from any other source.
Also make it easier to share proof of previous behaviors. The past only influences us because we're bound by it. And manipulators learn the system. If you did nothing wrong then why would it matter if I told everyone else what you said to me, in a provable way?
If words have no effect then why do you care if yours are ever heard? You are not the best and only judge about life. Just your own experiences. I should have a choice about who I interact with (and zero interactions is "cruel and unusual punishment" remember).
Setting boundaries is normal and completely acceptable. I don't see this is a problem with what I'm saying?
But you can get in significant trouble for just *one* time misgendering someone or expressing doubt as to someones status as 'trans'.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not required to carry an ID to walk down the street..
Depending on your state.
Re: (Score:2)
No. At no point in this history of this country has the government ever had a legal duty to enforce identification in any way.
That's a bit of a tortured sentence so it's not actually clear what your position is on this. If you mean that the government never forces people to carry id within the country, then that's not true. There are plenty of situations where they do. If you mean the government doesn't have a right to force people to identify themselves, that isn't true either. The police are allowed to detain you and ask you to provide your name and address with no cause and arrest you if you resist. If you mean that the governm
Re: (Score:2)
Can’t you go one day without thinking about trans people?
Re: (Score:2)
Also... how often do you see trans women wearing outfits that regular women wear, just normal dowdy boring stuff that doesn't show cleavage etc, without loads of makeup? Its a constant sexual display, designed to make men think about them.
You seem to be seriously confused. Part of the problem might be that "trans" as an abbreviation could refer to transsexuals' or transvestites. A transvestite might be a transsexual, but not necessarily. What you're thinking of is drag shows which tend to be about glamour. Most transsexuals just wear regular old comfortable clothing most of the time. Sure, some of them might spend more time on their appearance than the average slob who just throws on jeans and a t-shirt, but others might just wear jeans and
Re: (Score:2)
Also... how often do you see trans women wearing outfits that regular women wear, just normal dowdy boring stuff that doesn't show cleavage etc, without loads of makeup? Its a constant sexual display, designed to make men think about them.
You seem to be seriously confused. Part of the problem might be that "trans" as an abbreviation could refer to transsexuals' or transvestites. A transvestite might be a transsexual, but not necessarily. What you're thinking of is drag shows which tend to be about glamour. Most transsexuals just wear regular old comfortable clothing most of the time. Sure, some of them might spend more time on their appearance than the average slob who just throws on jeans and a t-shirt, but others might just wear jeans and a t-shirt. Or, they might wear a dress or a skirt even though they were born with male genitalia. Oh noes.
The term 'transvestite' is regarded as extremely offensive these days! Didn't you know? The proper term is 'cross dresser'.
Re: (Score:2)
So the answer is no.
Re: (Score:2)
Also... how often do you see trans women wearing outfits that regular women wear, just normal dowdy boring stuff that doesn't show cleavage etc, without loads of makeup?
Whenever I'm in my office, since we share space with a group advocating for sexual and gender equality. I suspect you're a victim of selection bias. You see someone identified as trans showing cleavage and wearing loads of makeup, and that becomes your definition of a "trans person". How do you know they're trans? Because, as you note, they're going out of their way to attract attention.
In contrast, if a trans woman were wearing "just normal dowdy boring stuff", how would you know she was trans? So you ha
Misgendering wouldn't rise to the level of threat (Score:2)
If you created dozens of Facebook accounts, opening a new one every time your target blocks you for misgendering them and continue to do that for years, then you might have an equivalent situation.
You're also a stal
Re: (Score:3)
Is that what the court is saying? TFA isn't all that clear, but...
The case, Counterman v. Colorado, concerns a man named Billy Raymond Counterman, who was convicted under a Colorado anti-stalking law, after he sent a barrage of threatening Facebook messages to a woman heâ(TM)d never met. The Colorado law didnâ(TM)t require the court to consider Countermanâ(TM)s mental state when he sent the messages. It only had to consider his behavior and how it was objectively received, that is, whether he
Thanks (Score:2)
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:2)
Otherwise, literally any communication could be labelled as threatening, after the fact, and prosecuted. And, at that point, you may as well just ban all communication completely because SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, at SOME TIME might find it threatening.
It's interesting because Europe, and especially the UK in particular, have laws that say it becomes hate speech if the person hearing it is offended by it.
Among other things there was a case where a guy called a German woman a schweinhund (literally means pigdog) and he got arrested because she received it as a racial slur, when even in Germany it has no such connotation. It's basically like calling somebody an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, literally any communication could be labelled as threatening, after the fact, and prosecuted. And, at that point, you may as well just ban all communication completely because SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, at SOME TIME might find it threatening.
It's interesting because Europe, and especially the UK in particular, have laws that say it becomes hate speech if the person hearing it is offended by it.
Among other things there was a case where a guy called a German woman a schweinhund (literally means pigdog) and he got arrested because she received it as a racial slur, when even in Germany it has no such connotation. It's basically like calling somebody an asshole.
This is a real problem for humanity!
Freedom of expression becomes a vehicle of oppression... and thus must be stamped out.
We run the real risk of annihilating science, art, politics, humor... I don't think the list stops until communication itself is gone.
Re:Alternate Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait...wait...wait.
Are you actually trying to say, that calling someone by the "wrong (according to them) pronouns" would somehow, somewhere in this world be considered threatining or somehow violent speech!??!?!
Seriously?
If so...then when the hell exactly did we drop the concept of "sticks and stones..."?
JFC...the world is rapidly devolving into a bad Monty Python skit on acid as far as outlandish made up gibberish being considered reality.
Re: (Score:2)
It hurt my feelings and caused me anxiety which is a form of suffering and therefore harmful just like physical violence, thus words I don't like are violence.
That's the "logic" they use.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy didn't have the mental capacity to understand that his texts were threatening.
From the texts quoted here, that means he doesn't belong in prison.
He belongs in a mental hospital.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably. But there are also people who can't understand or anticipate other peoples' reactions to their words, not because they're delusional, but because they're not neurotypical.
While I agree it's a good idea to make it easy as possible for victims of stalking to seek protection and relief, I think throwing people in prison without having to prove criminal intent goes too far. Jail should be a possiblity, but only for people whose acts can be shown to be intentional. For people whose actions are unin
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. But there are also people who can't understand or anticipate other peoples' reactions to their words, not because they're delusional, but because they're not neurotypical.
The proper question isn't whether they're delusion, it's whether they're causing harm to other people. Even mental harm. There should be a "reasonable person" test here (as there was in the Colorado law), but if a reasonable person would feel threatened, the guy needs to be deal with in a way that makes him stop.
While I agree it's a good idea to make it easy as possible for victims of stalking to seek protection and relief, I think throwing people in prison without having to prove criminal intent goes too far.
Congratulations. You've just made involuntary manslaughter legal.
Jail should be a possiblity, but only for people whose acts can be shown to be intentional. For people whose actions are unintentional but unwanted, a less punitive response is called for, like an injunction against contacting the victim.
Restraining orders are only useful if they act as a deterrent. Enforcement - after they're violated - is spotty at best, and we are,
Re: (Score:2)
No, you need to have intent for involuntary manslaughter, just not intent *to kill*.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a good way to avoid criminalizing such people. The law should have an exception for such cases, and that requirement can be mandated via things like equality laws that require consideration be given to people who are not neurotypical.
Doing it this way just opens the door to abuse, because it doesn't require a diagnosable condition.
Re: (Score:3)
It's really hard to find examples of what exactly he was sending. But of the few that have made it into the articles, not a single one is reasonable. One is an explicit death threat and another very strongly implies a death threat. I fail to see how those could notI be threatening. And intent is very clearly there. One does not trip, fall down a staircase, and *accidentally* log in to Facebook, type out a death threat, and send it whilst flailing about, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point here was that the texts did pass the reasonable person test, and on that basis he was convicted.
The Supreme Court is saying that the standard should not be if a reasonable person would have felt threatened, but if the accused knew that their actions were likely to be interpreted as threatening.
Re:Alternate Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't to say that it should all be up to the recipient's interpretation, but the bar should be lower than having to prove intent.
The most basic principle of criminal law is that you have to prove intent.
Does that mean some people will get away with doing bad things? Yes, it does. That's a consequence of protecting freedom, and it's worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't to say that it should all be up to the recipient's interpretation, but the bar should be lower than having to prove intent.
The most basic principle of criminal law is that you have to prove intent.
Yes, but it's important to realize that intent is not binary, there are degrees. The two common lesser degrees (which are far easier to prove because they don't require getting inside the perpetrator's head!) are recklessness and negligence.
A person acts recklessly if they ignore the potential for harm that a reasonable person would not. So if a reasonable person would expect that the texts would likely be taken as threats of violence, then it can be determined that the perpetrator at least acted reckless
Re: (Score:2)
Someone else provided some examples of what he was sending. They're bad enough that a reasonable person would consider them threatening. It's hard to prove intent, but that should only protect the sender so far. That isn't to say that it should all be up to the recipient's interpretation, but the bar should be lower than having to prove intent. There should be some measure of reasonable interpretation.
Does gutting the first amendment really need to be Plan A?
There are a million other ways to mitigate situations like this. If you want to pass a law that says "you must stop unnecessarily contacting someone who makes an official complaint about it" I am 99.9% confident that will stand up to SCOTUS inspection just fine.
It's making a moral evaluation of the content of personal expression that puts a law in bad stead when it comes to free speech protections. But (to the extent you don't run afoul of any other
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, though I imagine the Justices would feel, and have felt, differently about threats directed toward them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Those justices certainly do feel different. So much so that you can protest wherever you like, just not outside their house. https://www.statesman.com/stor... [statesman.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"One rule for me. A different rule for thee."
Contemptible. Though I'm not at all surprised that this SCOTUS went that way; I am fairly surprised that the only dissenters were Thomas and the theocrat. I know power can corrupt Democrats as much as it does Republicans. But I would think that they's at least make an effort to not be hypocrites and support that double standard.
Re: (Score:2)
An alternate headline is needed because the source story is absolutely crap viewpoint advocacy, after it gutted journalism and wore its skin. "Gutted". Trash like this is why the public doesn't trust journalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme Court Reaffirms Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech is a freedom for sharing your opinion, not a carte blanche cheque to act like a thundercunt and threaten people.
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme Court Reaffirms Freedom of Speech is correct.
The concern-trolls trying to remove intent as a requirement for criminal conviction are trying to kid you that this type of law is the only solution to stalking. It's not. If you've got an individual who is genuinely utterly deluded about the impact their unwanted attention is giving, that's what restraining orders are for. Then the perpetrator is on notice that continuing this behaviour is unacceptable, regardless of what they think about it, and know th
Morons at the ACLU and EFF (Score:5, Informative)
FFS, these are some of the examples of what he wrote to a total rando...
He was clearly trying to make her afraid. You don't write stuff like that second quote unless you are trying to say "I'm crazy, and there's no telling what I might do to you."
This was targeted and meant to elicit fear. It should have been upheld by the SCOTUS.
Re: (Score:3)
This was targeted and meant to elicit fear.
That is actually one of the questions that has to be proven in court.. It's not clear actually. Only in the view of a person reading the message -- it would be understood as potentially threatening by any reasonable person and implying something sinister, but not necessarily by the actual person who sent that message, and we have no information about the author's mental states or what they were actually cognizant of or not at the time they wrote out that mes
Re:Morons at the ACLU and EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
Try sending that message to the President or any prominent politician and see if the authorities parse whether it was an actionable threat with as much nuance as you. Those are straight up threats.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's not clear actually. Only in the view of a person
> reading the message
OK. So perhaps provide clarity to us:
In what context would a reasonable person *NOT* view those messages (Coming from a stranger, let's not forget. So no LARPing "How would this look in the crime thriller novel I'm writing.) as threatening? Or, for that matter, by what reasoning and in what circumstances would YOU send those messages to a stranger such that they would not be considered threatening?
Re: (Score:2)
He was clearly trying to make her afraid. You don't write stuff like that second quote unless you are trying to say "I'm crazy, and there's no telling what I might do to you."
This was targeted and meant to elicit fear. It should have been upheld by the SCOTUS.
Make up your mind.
SCOTUS said if it was meant to elicit fear, it isn't protected speech.
If your claim it is clear is true, the lower court will point out why it is clear and he will remain in prison.
You seem to be arguing against this ruling, and are in favor of the opposite where it doesn't have to be clear it was a threat to be found guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
but (havent read the decision only the commentary so far) SCOTUS took issue with the law he was convicted under not considering the accused intent (mens rea).
Its entirely possible he did intend to make her afraid, and had the stalking law been written to require evidence of or at least consideration of that he might very well have still be convicted and the law might have been found to be constitutional. However the court said the law isnt Constitutional as written so it and his conviction under it get va
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but my understanding was that this ruling doesn't negate the law, merely changes the standard of the law that it must prove something to the effect of at least two of the following three for a conviction: intent, understanding of harm, a reasonable person would be threatened.
The state of Colorado, resting on the wording of the law, proved the weakest of the links, that a reasonable person would be threatened by these messages. In this ruling, the court determined that it needs to be retried as the s
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way that intent was not there though. It takes a decently-sized number of deliberate steps to turn on a computer, log in to Facebook, type up a (readable) message, and send it to someone. That's not something that happens unintentionally when you doze off and faceplant yourself onto the keyboard or if the cat decided it is the best place for a nap.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way that intent was not there though.
Doesn't matter if the prosecution did nothing to prove it, full stop.
My understanding is that their case relied solely upon the fact that the victim felt threatened and any reasonable individual would have as well, because that's the way the law they were trying him under was written. Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that's why the appeal won, but the prosecution can retry the case even though jeopardy had already been attached. All the ruling seems to have done is declare the language of law under w
It's going back to court (Score:3)
The problem I have with this (as I mentioned on another thread) is that this more or less guts anti-cyberstalking laws. Just like TFA says.
If, for example, I harass you on Facebook for years, making new accounts every time you block me or FB bans me and I never say anything like "die you!" but keep it just civil enough that a reasonable person might n
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you the first one, but that's tame for what many get just for being political polar to each other.
However this:
âoeIâ(TM)m currently unsupervised. I know, it freaks me out too, but the possibilities are endless,â
I have a t-shirt my kids gave me that says almost the same thing, (and seen others wearing it too) and it's not uncommon for burbs to each other inuring to hang out using phasing similar or simple that they are bored....
He's getting a new trial (Score:3)
> He was clearly trying to make her afraid. You don't write stuff like that second quote unless you are trying to say "I'm crazy, and there's no telling what I might do to you."
For what it's worth, I agree this guy was a troll who spent years harassing this person and who belongs in a mental hospital in this specific case. I'd probably find him guilty under both the old standard and this new one given what I know of his years of harassment.
But this ruling doesn't just let him wander free. SCOTUS tried
Anyone know the mail addresses of the SCOTUS? (Score:2, Funny)
Asking for a creepy friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You will find that the Supreme Court Justices have a much more constrained sense of free speech when that speech is directed at them: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03... [npr.org] . There is even US Federal Code 18 Section 1507 that curtails the 1st Amendment when it comes to judges and jurors.
How nice for them.
Re: (Score:2)
You really want to start looking for someone on a different continent just because he told a judge she's a crazy old bitch?
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually on their Contact Us [supremecourt.gov] page:
U.S. Mail:
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543-0001
It wasn't his intention to threaten his target? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, has everyone lost their common sense?
No just a few SCOTUS plants put there to ruin the country. ... And a few Slashdotters who are arseholes enough to think that Freedom of Speech = freedom from consequences.
I don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you implore those women to "die" and that humanity would be better off without them and insinuate that you might do "anything"? Those go beyond being a "little creepy" and "subject to being misunderstood" and cross the line into credible threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Context is VERY important. There are things you can say to your close friends as a display of trust that would come off as rude and even threatening to someone who doesn't know you.
So there's a line between familiarity and creepiness, and some people lack the good judgment to know where that line is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... gallows humor (Which is actually one of my own coping mechanisms when horrible things happen.) is fairly easy to misinterpret. But when I do screw up, *I* acknowledge my error, apologize, and knock it the hell off. I bet you do too. What I do NOT do is persist, repeatedly and over a long span of time, with someone who has made it clear that I've failed at being funny and have ventured into borderline offensive or creepy.
The true test (Score:2)
Then we will see if judges think they are somehow special or if they actually eat their own dogfood. I'm betting they think they are special though.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm betting they think they are special though.
We know that they think they are special. Just look at how close you can get to the Supreme Court when protesting, vs. how close the Justices allowed protestors to get to abortion clinics.
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme Court justices can get Secret Service protection by asking for it. After a brief visit by the politest cops in the known universe, one has to be literally mentally ill to keep harassing their protectee. No criminal case needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FOAD (Score:3)
SCOTUS determined FOAD isn't a true threat.
Millennials and Zoomers: we're taxed for this?
I had to WANT them to hurt? (Score:2)
There are tons of unempathetic morons online. If one of the stalks someone else they're not in trouble if they claim to not want them to hurt?
OK, I just need to stalk THEM! OK. I got this figured out. Be anywhere they are, especially when they think they're alone. At home, school, church... I got you "fam".
I will be that lesson you needed to experience, before you'll protect others. Poor choice if you're a 'judge' and a final stop for lots of other people.
In part I say this jokingly because a chief j
It doesn't prevent restraining orders ffs. (Score:3)
Hopefully, the timing... (Score:2)
"stand your ground"? (Score:2)
And yet the perception of the defender/shooter that he was being attacked is often enough for a manslaughter charge to get dropped or acquitted. They only had to think they were being threatened, not prove they were.
The contradiction here is astounding.
Set aside the details of this case for a moment (Score:2)
The victim is empathetic, and no one, even the guy's lawyer, disagree that the guy is guilty of something that should be prosecutable.
The way the summary's worded is tricky too, the issue isn't "didn't require them to consider his mental state" it's "only consider his action and how it was objectively received."
Unless I misunderstand, under this law, Trump for example, could have gotten Kathy Griffin prison time if she posted from Colorado. Musk could probably have gotten the Twitter Plane guy charged crimi
Ought to be a pattern of evidence demonstr. intent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess protesting (Score:2)
Your headline is bad and you should feel bad (Score:2)
The First Amendment is good, actually.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
i don't think you understand what is happening... what is happening is that they are building/enhancing a 'two tier' system of law.
Wilhoit's Law:
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you get what is happening. The SOCUS which thankfully has been swung back to weak conservative majority that actually cares a little bit about the Constitution and Bill of rights just told CO you can't imprison people on the for mere negligence in communicating with someone. They have to at least have been aware what they were saying could very likely frighten someone.
The law as written might have sent someone to jail because of a typo mutating nose into noose for example..
Exactly the type o
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts were going down a very similar path. Would they be upset if somebody mentioned that the only solution to such blatant corruption is a permanent one?
Re: (Score:2)
What's this we crap "white man"? (old joke punchline)
He who? Said what? There is one link, and all of Google out there for you.