[HN Gopher] US Supreme Court backs man who sent female musician ...
___________________________________________________________________
US Supreme Court backs man who sent female musician flood of
unwanted messages
Author : EA-3167
Score : 9 points
Date : 2023-06-27 21:30 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| justbored123 wrote:
| "sent thousands of disturbing and threatening messages over two
| years"
|
| Yea, that is bullshit. You can't harass people like that. Once
| you let the worst people in society get away with it, all bets
| are off.
|
| I bet that if the guy had done the exact same thing to the judges
| he would had had a visit from the authorities in a second.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I find it very hard to understand how a judge can conclude that
| the offender did not intend the threatening nature of messages
| like "You're not being good for human relations. Die."
| paddw wrote:
| I guess, because he is claiming to be insane?
| garyfirestorm wrote:
| I'm curious to know exactly when do the words turn into a threat?
| USC says you gotta prove intent. If one writes it and sends it,
| isn't that intentional?
| tjalfi wrote:
| Here's the ruling.
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
| Pigalowda wrote:
| Weird. I guess if someone in your family is being stalked and
| threatened the offender can just fob it off as bullshit after
| they're caught.
|
| And when someone goes vigilante they can say they didn't really
| mean it after they gun down the stalker.
| [deleted]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I'm not seeing anything in his messages that screams clear and
| present danger. Telling people you don't like to die in a hole
| is rude, but it shouldn't be criminal.
| paddw wrote:
| I think there is a contextual difference between telling
| someone to "die" as a way of expressing contempt in a public
| forum and directly messaging them, with details about where
| they live etc...
| gary_0 wrote:
| If I'm reading this right:
|
| - You have to prove intent, otherwise the offender is protected
| by the First Amendment. If there wasn't threatening intent, the
| speech wasn't a threat even if a normal person (ie. the victim)
| would see it as a threat against their life.
|
| - You can't prove intent if the offender is mentally incompetent.
|
| - Therefore, the violent ravings of madmen are protected by the
| First Amendment, victims be damned.
|
| - A criminal of sound mind would be convicted, but someone
| provably insane gets to keep harassing people.
|
| What utility to society does protecting the threatening speech of
| legally insane people serve?
|
| And what other kinds of illegal speech does being mentally
| incompetent let you get away with? Publishing military secrets?
| Coordinating terrorist attacks? Distributing CSAM?
| Ukv wrote:
| > If I'm reading this right:
|
| > - You have to prove intent [...]
|
| That's what the defendant wanted to be the case, but "the
| ruling did not go that far, saying prosecutors need only show
| that a speaker acted recklessly".
| gary_0 wrote:
| It would make more sense if the issue was just that the
| prosecution made their case incorrectly, but the article
| doesn't present it that way. It's probably safe to assume
| they sensationalized it... although this _is_ the US Supreme
| Court we 're talking about, so it's hard to give them the
| benefit of the doubt.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-27 23:02 UTC)