4 ms·
In the USA, Counterman v Colorado upends your first point, a case where a man who by any rational definition was stalking and harassing a woman, made the legal
by stevenwoo 3y ago
In the USA, Counterman v Colorado upends your first point, a case where a man who by any rational definition was stalking and harassing a woman, made the legal standard harder for all future victims.
Also Kiwi Farms regularly brigades people with zero consequences.
- colpabar 3y agokeffals lost.
- ranger_danger 3y agoHow does this make it harder? https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-counterman-v-colorado https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a... This says "the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten the victim must be established based on a showing of (at least) recklessness". I think many could argue that speech which wasn't intentionally intended to harm should not be interpreted as such, and I don't see where this makes intentional harm less prosecutable. Everyone's opinion is different, including judges of course, and I'm not saying yours is wrong, but I'd like to hear more about why you think this makes "things" harder.
- everforward 3y agoIt adds another fact that must be proven. Some cases will be able to meet the other bars but unable to convince a jury of that recklessness. Doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad, but I think it’s disingenuous to act like this doesn’t add another hurdle for prosecutors