Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Advocates Warn That a US Supreme Court Decision Is a Win for Cyberstalkers
56 views
Skip to first unread message
Judith Latham
Jul 10, 2023, 3:06:37 PM7/10/23
to
Advocates Warn That a US Supreme Court Decision Is a Win for
Cyberstalkers
On Tuesday, a 7-2 decision by the US Supreme Court reversed the
conviction of a man who repeatedly threatened a stranger online.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion that First Amendment
free speech protections require such cases to show that online
harassers or cyberstalkers were aware that their digital abuse could
be construed as threatening. Threats of violence are not protected by
the First Amendment, but the court said prosecutors must show that a
defendant “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his
communications would be viewed as threatening violence.” The offender
in the case the court looked at, Billy Counterman of Colorado, had
“moved to dismiss the charge on First Amendment grounds, arguing that
his messages were not ‘true threats’ and therefore could not form the
basis of a criminal prosecution.”
Counterman had persistently and repeatedly messaged a local singer he
didn't know on Facebook over two years, and when she would block him
he made new accounts to continue messaging her. Victims of online
harassment and digital rights advocates warned following the decision
that it creates a dangerous precedent to empower cyberstalkers. “The
Court just handed stalkers and harassers, including of politicians,
journalists, climate scientists, doctors advocating for vaccines, you
name it, a new weapon,” Soraya Chemaly, director of the Women’s Media
Center Speech Project, told the Washington Post.
https://www.wired.com/story/cyberstalking-first-amendment-us-supreme-court-security-roundup/
Cyberstalkers
On Tuesday, a 7-2 decision by the US Supreme Court reversed the
conviction of a man who repeatedly threatened a stranger online.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion that First Amendment
free speech protections require such cases to show that online
harassers or cyberstalkers were aware that their digital abuse could
be construed as threatening. Threats of violence are not protected by
the First Amendment, but the court said prosecutors must show that a
defendant “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his
communications would be viewed as threatening violence.” The offender
in the case the court looked at, Billy Counterman of Colorado, had
“moved to dismiss the charge on First Amendment grounds, arguing that
his messages were not ‘true threats’ and therefore could not form the
basis of a criminal prosecution.”
Counterman had persistently and repeatedly messaged a local singer he
didn't know on Facebook over two years, and when she would block him
he made new accounts to continue messaging her. Victims of online
harassment and digital rights advocates warned following the decision
that it creates a dangerous precedent to empower cyberstalkers. “The
Court just handed stalkers and harassers, including of politicians,
journalists, climate scientists, doctors advocating for vaccines, you
name it, a new weapon,” Soraya Chemaly, director of the Women’s Media
Center Speech Project, told the Washington Post.
https://www.wired.com/story/cyberstalking-first-amendment-us-supreme-court-security-roundup/
Bryan Simmons
Jul 10, 2023, 3:35:58 PM7/10/23
to
of shit, and he should kill himself like his mother did.
John Kuthe should kill himself. He is a worthless piece
of shit, and he should kill himself like his mother did.
John Kuthe should kill himself. He is a worthless piece
of shit, and he should kill himself like his mother did.
John Kuthe should kill himself. He is a worthless piece
of shit, and he should kill himself like his mother did.
John Kuthe should kill himself. He is a worthless piece
of shit, and he should kill himself like his mother did.
--Bryan
T
Jul 11, 2023, 12:22:19 AM7/11/23
to
free speech.
Hurting someone's feelings is not a crime.
“Free speech is my right to say what you
don’t want to hear.”
--George Orwell
SteveW
Jul 11, 2023, 4:22:21 AM7/11/23
to
neither necessary nor acceptable.
T
Jul 11, 2023, 7:41:17 AM7/11/23
to
By the way, I come with a whole host of cyber stalkers
on other technical newsgroups, who harass me on all
kinds of fronts. They are total ass holes.
My solution is to just kill file them, not take then
to court for hurting my feelings.
What you see in this cartoon is not acceptable behavior:
https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/cartoons/afb071023dAPC-800x0.jpg
This is what Orwell was criticizing.
Frank
Jul 11, 2023, 10:24:34 AM7/11/23
to
jon
Jul 11, 2023, 12:27:21 PM7/11/23
to
Bruce
Jul 11, 2023, 2:35:27 PM7/11/23
to
Leonard Blaisdell
Jul 13, 2023, 6:48:27 PM7/13/23
to
On 2023-07-11, Bruce <Br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Of course. To be as funny as he is, you have to be intelligent.
There's something to that. You're not funny.
> Of course. To be as funny as he is, you have to be intelligent.
Bruce
Jul 13, 2023, 6:54:15 PM7/13/23
to
On 13 Jul 2023 22:48:21 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
Then I'll just have to be intelligent. Damn!
Judith Latham
Jul 13, 2023, 8:58:20 PM7/13/23
to
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:54:08 +1000, Bruce <Br...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
LOL!!
wrote:
0 new messages