Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig 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: References: 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: On 3/7/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:41:30 PM PST, "moviePig" wrote: > >> On 3/7/2025 3:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, "moviePig" 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".