3 ms·
You're right I meant to say hate crimes not hate speech. Although in the Utah case her actions where pretty clearly speech [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/
by mitt_romney_12 3y ago
You're right I meant to say hate crimes not hate speech. Although in the Utah case her actions where pretty clearly speech [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-a-hate-crime-charge-for-stomping-on-a-back-the-blue-sign-in-ut https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-...
- hellojesus 3y agoThis case is not going to result in a criminal indictment. It is clearly a 1A violation. Much like how Florida has recently been nabbing people from other states for online posts[1]. In both cases, it seems the justice system is being weaponized to punish those via a lengthy judicial process. Hopefully the defendants will sue for civil rights violations. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-does-in-minecraft-mean-why-a-4chan-user-was-arrested-after-posting-this-viral-phrase-explained/ar-AA18S7hl https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-does-in-minec...
- mitt_romney_12 3y agoThey hopefully won't but the threat of arrest, even if they won't be indicted, is definitely enough to have a dampening effect on people exercising their rights. At the same time I wouldn't be confident in the courts protecting your first amendment rights [1] especially given the current court. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States (Note: this case has been overturned, but it took 50 years)