5 ms·
The problem is that when you convict someone, it's important that you convict him for the correct crime with the correct evidence. Letting him be convicted for
by Jiro 3y ago
The problem is that when you convict someone, it's important that you convict him for the correct crime with the correct evidence. Letting him be convicted for threats without having to demonstrate that he meant it, and without other stalking-related evidence, may have caught a stalker. But it would have been bad precedent if you ever told someone on the Internet to FOAD and you got thrown in jail for it.
It's like letting someone out of jail because the police searched him without a warrant. The correct thing to do here is to let the criminal go free; maybe the police will get a warrant next time.
The fact that the ACLU supported the guy should be a sign that something is up other than just catching a stalker.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago> But it would have been bad precedent if you ever told someone on the Internet to FOAD and you got thrown in jail for it. That isn’t even close to what the case was about. It’s not even within a charitable interpretation of what’s laid out in the article. I understand the inclination to make a principled case for defending speech, but if you’re doing it in the context of a specific case it’s a disservice to both to ignore the broad strokes of what the case is about. Edit: > The fact that the ACLU supported the guy should be a sign that something is up other than just catching a stalker. No, it really shouldn’t. I deeply respect the ACLU, but they take the wrong side of many cases as a matter of course. I respect their principles in doing so, but I don’t have to agree with their position every time they do it. This seems very much like they’re on the wrong side, and it’s not about “catching” a stalker but preventing persistent harm to the person being stalked.