this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
73 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22058 readers
8 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


For US News, see the US News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mutalias 5 points 1 year ago

Counterman had a history of making violent threats to women and was on supervised release from one such federal conviction during the two years he continuously messaged Whalen.

The ruling did not go that far, saying prosecutors need only show that a speaker acted recklessly, meaning the person was "aware that others could regard his statements as threatening violence and delivers them anyway."

This goes to your point which, hyperbole aside, I think the bar for judging a statement as a threat unless it is unequivocal in its phrasing or the perpetrator literally admits their intent is set impossibly high here. I can't see how you get a more clear cut situation of where someone ought to understand that their words were causing distress.

In this scenario you literally have the authorities going "what you're doing is threatening people." The person then goes on to keep doing that thing, and then somehow successfully fields the defense that "he didn't understand that it was coming off as threatening."