Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Jewish Journalist Arrested for Objecting to Islamic Terror Symbol
 in Grocery Store
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:41:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vqfllr$3nd8s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqfjfl$3mpjn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqfk6l$3n6mi$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:41:31 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb153c52fd25747ef2b3c7954d50a156";
	logging-data="3912988"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CURbrDSyTGRsTUEApbVQG00lhGMkkNXs="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uI5eQxlbCbyeDxJGErN5VRPrjzw=
In-Reply-To: <vqfk6l$3n6mi$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2670

On 3/7/2025 3:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>> https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/
>>>   
>>>   ...
>>
>> Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not  "objecting".
> 
> Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the original
> post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case because
> she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged and
> flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> **North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires repeated
> electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy,
> threaten, or harass" an individual.
> 
> --Rachmuth made a single post (no repetition as the statute requires).
> 
> --Rachmuth's post was not directed *at* the employee as the statute requires.
> It was *about* the employee but not sent *to* the employee in any way.
> 
> Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
> reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of
> cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech and
> press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.

Which, according to your link, didn't happen.

Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.