Path: 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 17:12:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vqfr1c$3odqf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqfjfl$3mpjn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqfk6l$3n6mi$1@dont-email.me> <vqfllr$3nd8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqfnih$3nt4f$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 23:13:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb153c52fd25747ef2b3c7954d50a156";
	logging-data="3946319"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TYWPpyIA709aE2SWrFRKwn3WmsUAZhyU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:itfHMs2RT8iiL3tNTh+btR+88TQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqfnih$3nt4f$1@dont-email.me>

On 3/7/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:41:30 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Arresting her for cyber-stalking also violated her free speech rights.

Google's AI:

    "...cyberstalking is a crime in the United States and many other 
countries. It's a form of cyberbullying that involves using technology 
to stalk, harass, or intimidate someone."


>> Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.
> 
> She wasn't guilty of anything regardless of your grammatical nit-picking. What
> she did wasn't legally actionable under either North Carolina law or the
> United States Constitution.

What "grammatical nitpicking"?  Grammar's not involved here.

I have no idea whether she was guilty of cyberstalking or of anything 
else. I know only that she was arrested for it, and not for "objecting".