this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22063 readers
30 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Completely insane ruling. Wild that Kagan went across the aisle for this.
So I guess it's basically impossible to convict anyone of anything involving speech? If I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, how can you prove I wasn't having a delusion that there was a fire? Maybe there was an explosion in the movie and I was so immersed I thought it was real!
Dude had previous convictions and spent years doing this harassing, it's not like this was an isolated mental break. Truly insane.
Yeah, the fact that he sent messages over multiple years, opened various accounts after the artist blocked him, and was actively messaging her about seeing her in public is pretty cut-and-dry stalking. Death threats are damning as well. Sure, he might not be mentally stable, but that shouldn’t give him a pass for reprehensible and dangerous behavior.
To be clear, I do not agree with the ruling, but the ruling was on whether this was a federal or a civil matter. I think the government should strongly prevent clear harassment and reasonable threats of violence, but the supreme court decided that threats or words are not enough in this case. I think it's particularly two-faced, especially in light of threats of violence being used regularly to prosecute minorities and identify potential terrorists, but threats of violence directed towards a single person in the context of years of harassing behavior and a known pattern of behavior were apparently not enough.
If I had to guess, the court was wary of allowing any potential attacks to the 1st amendment, as they have been want to do in the past - a famous example of this in (somewhat) recent history is when the supreme court held that the 1st amendment was more important than the stolen valor act passed just a few years earlier. The ruling doesn't particularly surprise me, nor does Kagan swapping sides because in the US we have a strong free speech identity and free speech limitations in terms of harassment has almost never been ruled on (one might make the argument that virginia v. black might be one such case, but that's a case of racially motivated hate speech which is not quite analogous here).
Seems like the actual issue was that the law in question would let him be convicted even if he wasn't doing these things and just being a nuisance. It's not that he's innocent, it's that the law used is itself illegal.
I am struggling to figure out how anyone could be convicted of stalking under this ruling. Some of his texts even involves death threats!
I would say that he did demonstrate that he was insane, and therefore should be confined to a mental health institution.
But that's the thing. Are they going to....put him in a mental institution? Because he desperately needs to be in a good one. I would be much more ok with this ruling if he were. I'm getting the sense he's going back to society where he will behave totally normally from now on.
I sincerely doubt they would just release him to the general population.
This guy, given his behavior, should absolutely be in a facility where he can't do any harm.
However - I have known a few people with Tourette's over the years, and can absolutely say that mental state and abilities should play a factor in whether or not something that's done would violate the law.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater may not be something someone with tourette's can control. If that causes a stampede and people get trampled, that's not their fault, in my opinion.
The point I'm making is that the "fire" is a classic example of speech that isn't protected in the US, but with this ruling there's no way to prove intent. So what if I sat down and continued watching the movie afterwards? I just got over the delusion. And someone with tourette's would probably apologize, try to calm people down, or even avoid a theater altogether. I'm pretty sure that someone with a peanut allergy can't sue a peanut farm if they go visit and sample the produce; if you know there's an extra danger for you specifically in performing an activity then you are responsible.
Not to mention tourette's could never cause targeted, violent, electronic-message based harassment either. This is a focused, intentional action.
In this particular case, I believe the accused should be an inpatient at a mental health facility, especially because of the violent threats that were made. There is no way he should be allowed to walk free and continue doing this to people.
In the case of someone with Tourette's yelling "Fire! Titties! Fire!" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede - they are still not responsible, nor would they be ruled responsible for any deaths that occur, and that's 100% correct in my view.
I don't how it will affect your overall stance, but the "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" (aka, "clear and present danger") test, which comes from Schenck v. United States, was overturned in 1979 with the case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which gave us the "Imminent Lawless Action" test, instead. This test requires:
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is only illegal if it meets that test-- all three requirements-- on a case by case basis.
In that instance, I would say that they probably should have known the potential risks involved with putting themself in that situation.
So you're saying that people with disabilities should be excluded from society?
Pretty sure tourettes doesn't make you create four new Facebook accounts
Maybe you overlooked where I said that this guy should be in a facility where he can't hurt anyone?
Seems like the ruling was correct. Colorado's law seems too easy to convict.
Threats have to have intent. I agree this case the defendant was likely guilty of making threats. But the SCOTUS was overturning the case on the grounds of the Colorado law. Not judging the defendant specifically. At least that's how the above poster's excerpts from Kagan's decision and the 2 dissents from Barrett and Thomas read.
So I'll defend this ruling.
Quick background: First Amendment protects people from being prosecuted for their speech, but some types of speech are not protected, and can be punished by the government. One of those exceptions is "true threats." The federal and state governments can punish people for making true threats.
What the Supreme Court ruled: In order to determine whether any particular speech/message is a "true threat," the court has to determine whether the person making that speech at least "consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence" (or intended to threaten violence). The Colorado courts failed to apply this test properly, and any conviction for threats needs to go through that test, so they'll need to do it again.
What the Supreme Court did not rule: Whether the communications in this case would pass or fail that test.
On that record, I think it'll be pretty easy to convict under the new test.
After all, states punish people for theft, murder, robbery, assault, etc., when all of those convictions require proof that the defendant intended to cause that harm. Same with reckless driving and stuff like that: prosecutors know how to prove defendants' states of mind, and do it all the time.