2 ms·

I don't see how his original tweet [1] could possibly be considered harassment. Libel, perhaps, if untrue, but that's a civil matter, not something that police

• dragonwriter 5y ago
  California’s indirect cyber harassment law (Penal Code § 653.2) prohibits nonconsensual electronic publication of personally identifying information “for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party“ when the information published would be likely to produce or incite the unlawful act that is it's purpose. It's basically an anti-malicious-doxxing law.
  • leereeves 5y ago
    None of his tweets call for "unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment". Whatever the likely effect of exposing this deal, the government cannot be allowed to suppress reporting it simply because it is outrageous enough to cause angry responses. That's perverse. If public outrage over "alarmingly lucrative" government contracts is prosecuted as harassment, we're lost.
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Nothing in his message calls for "unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment". The law does not require a call for those things, it requires a purpose and likelihood of inciting them. Both intent and likelihood of effect are things that are routinely found (in criminal law generally) without an explicit call.
      • Tostino 5y ago
        That is a weak argument if i've ever seen one. Should we stop journalists from publishing anything about egregious abuses of power, because that might insight someone in the public to action?