8 ms·

It isn't legal in California > Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other perso

It isn't legal in California > Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=653.2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

joshuamorton 4y ago
Despite Musks claims, there's zero evidence that Sweeney has ever done anything with intent to place someone in fear for their safety. And, given that it operated for years without issue, there is in fact compelling evidence to the contrary.
- spritefs 4y ago
  I mean, I never said what Sweeney was doing is considered doxxing, or whether his behavior could lead to reasonable fear for safety. I'd rather let the lawyers untangle this annoying mess really didn't expect my initial comment to lead to a shitstorm...
browserman 4y ago
> with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety This would cover LibsOfTikTok, but not ElonJet
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  You mean Taylor Lorenz who doxxed LibsOfTikTok?
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    No, they mean libs of tiktok's posting. Neither Lorenz nor Sweeney has a document an intented to cause fear. LoTT does.
    - hajile 4y ago
      LoTT re-uploads video content the users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing. In what way can that be considered doxxing? If they published personal information the person didn't want put in the public eye, that would be a very different story.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        If we're to believe that information that is technically public can be "doxxing" if not widespread, then if I post about a party at my house, and then you share that post with lots of people who want to hurt me, that's doxxing and a violation of that law. > LoTT re-uploads video content This is not at all what LoTT does. That's what the LoTT TikTok did, but it was banned on TikTok. Current things that LoTT twitter account is posting about are: - Yoel Roth - A drag queen event at the white house - A number of videos and images of drag queens that were not posted by the performer - Taylor Lorenz - etc. And was repeatedly suspended from twitter for (incorrectly) claiming a hospital were doing hysterectomies on kids, resulting in bomb threats at said hospital, and then doing it again. "re-uploading content users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing" is a misrepresentation of the account.
        hajile 4y ago
        You are the one misrepresenting here. Someone involved in censoring a sitting US President is newsworthy by any definition as is someone who accepted a very public invitation to the White House. Taylor Lorenz doxxed LoTT (not even debatable here with the article even being edited to remove some of the doxxed links). Speaking about this and the public journalist who did it to you certainly seems appropriate. As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15. > Over the 3-year study period, a total of 204 gender affirmation surgical cases were identified: 177 chest/top and 27 genital/bottom surgeries (Table 1). Most cases were masculinizing chest reconstructions 177/204 (86.8%) with 65/177 (36.7%) of those patients being less than 18 years of age. > The Center for Gender Surgery (CfGS) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) was the first pediatric center in the United States to offer gender-affirming chest surgeries for individuals over 15 years old and genital surgeries for those over 17 years of age. In the four years since its inception, CfGS has completed over 300 gender-affirming surgeries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm-11-01943.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm...
pclmulqdq 4y ago
That law has never been tested in an appeals court yet, and likely won't stand up to a 1st amendment argument.
- theteapot 4y ago
  And you're a constitutional lawyer right?
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  "That law has never been tested in an appeals court yet" This is not how law works.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

joshuamorton 4y ago

Despite Musks claims, there's zero evidence that Sweeney has ever done anything with intent to place someone in fear for their safety. And, given that it operated for years without issue, there is in fact compelling evidence to the contrary.

spritefs 4y ago
I mean, I never said what Sweeney was doing is considered doxxing, or whether his behavior could lead to reasonable fear for safety. I'd rather let the lawyers untangle this annoying mess really didn't expect my initial comment to lead to a shitstorm...

browserman 4y ago

> with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety This would cover LibsOfTikTok, but not ElonJet

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
You mean Taylor Lorenz who doxxed LibsOfTikTok?
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  No, they mean libs of tiktok's posting. Neither Lorenz nor Sweeney has a document an intented to cause fear. LoTT does.
  - hajile 4y ago
    LoTT re-uploads video content the users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing. In what way can that be considered doxxing? If they published personal information the person didn't want put in the public eye, that would be a very different story.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      If we're to believe that information that is technically public can be "doxxing" if not widespread, then if I post about a party at my house, and then you share that post with lots of people who want to hurt me, that's doxxing and a violation of that law. > LoTT re-uploads video content This is not at all what LoTT does. That's what the LoTT TikTok did, but it was banned on TikTok. Current things that LoTT twitter account is posting about are: - Yoel Roth - A drag queen event at the white house - A number of videos and images of drag queens that were not posted by the performer - Taylor Lorenz - etc. And was repeatedly suspended from twitter for (incorrectly) claiming a hospital were doing hysterectomies on kids, resulting in bomb threats at said hospital, and then doing it again. "re-uploading content users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing" is a misrepresentation of the account.
      - hajile 4y ago
        You are the one misrepresenting here. Someone involved in censoring a sitting US President is newsworthy by any definition as is someone who accepted a very public invitation to the White House. Taylor Lorenz doxxed LoTT (not even debatable here with the article even being edited to remove some of the doxxed links). Speaking about this and the public journalist who did it to you certainly seems appropriate. As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15. > Over the 3-year study period, a total of 204 gender affirmation surgical cases were identified: 177 chest/top and 27 genital/bottom surgeries (Table 1). Most cases were masculinizing chest reconstructions 177/204 (86.8%) with 65/177 (36.7%) of those patients being less than 18 years of age. > The Center for Gender Surgery (CfGS) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) was the first pediatric center in the United States to offer gender-affirming chest surgeries for individuals over 15 years old and genital surgeries for those over 17 years of age. In the four years since its inception, CfGS has completed over 300 gender-affirming surgeries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm-11-01943.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm...

pclmulqdq 4y ago

That law has never been tested in an appeals court yet, and likely won't stand up to a 1st amendment argument.

theteapot 4y ago
And you're a constitutional lawyer right?
KingOfCoders 4y ago
"That law has never been tested in an appeals court yet" This is not how law works.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]