Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebrityDick t1_j10rkmq wrote

Seems hard to imagine that charging someone with bullying would be constitutional

−27

tmoney144 t1_j10sqzf wrote

She was charged with stalking, which likely means she made threats of harming someone.

16

celebrityDick t1_j11o4zd wrote

>She was charged with stalking, which likely means she made threats of harming someone.

The fact that the article is unspecific about the charges makes it seem like they want us to believe that the verbal bullying of children is a chargeable offense

−9

QuintoBlanco t1_j112zx7 wrote

Would you care to explain why you think this?

10

celebrityDick t1_j11mwvp wrote

> Would you care to explain why you think this?

Obviously on 1st amendment grounds. People have the right to say cruel and hurtful things, even to children. Why do you think the state should intercede in such matters?

−10

lunartree t1_j12wsvf wrote

> People have the right to say cruel and hurtful things, even to children

I can't believe you have to be told this, but this is not protected by the first amendment and indeed a form of child abuse.

Edit: shockingly this guy is a libertarian lol

5

pure_hate_MI t1_j144iqb wrote

Yeah one look through his post history shows this is sadly on par with every other take he has.

1

QuintoBlanco t1_j133at0 wrote

Have you done any research? Don't be tricked by people. Do your own research.

All legal experts agree that the protection of free speech in the Constitution cannot be absolute, because that would allow people to give false testimony in court.

Many legal experts believe that this part of the constitution must be incomplete, based on the wording of the relevant sentence.

There have been many legal cases where free speech stood at the core of the argument, and there is plenty of jurisprudence that makes it clear that freedom of speech is not absolute.

In general, the right to free speech means that citizens can publish their opinion without interference of the government, but not that citizens can bully, threaten, and/or deceive, other citizens with impunity.

Example: if you don't like Joe Biden, you can say that you don't like Joe Biden and you can specify why you don't like Joe Biden. You can say that he is a liar, a bad president, that he is too old, or that he is confused.

It's not illegal to say negative things about the president. Within reason...

If you say specific negative things about him that are factually not true, that is slander (libel when written). You might get sued in civil court.

If you threaten his life because you don't like him, the FBI will come knocking. because that's something for a criminal court.

3

celebrityDick t1_j14r6dq wrote

> All legal experts agree that the protection of free speech in the Constitution cannot be absolute, because that would allow people to give false testimony in court.

Government cannot compel people to testify in court.

>There have been many legal cases where free speech stood at the core of the argument, and there is plenty of jurisprudence that makes it clear that freedom of speech is not absolute.

Verbal bullying isn't included in any of that.

>In general, the right to free speech means that citizens can publish their opinion without interference of the government, but not that citizens can bully, threaten, and/or deceive, other citizens with impunity.

Threatening may be illegal, perhaps, but bullying and deception are perfectly lawful.

Keep in mind, just because some men with guns grabbed this woman off the street does not mean that the state is behaving lawfully. There's a difference between unlawful and illegal.

>If you say specific negative things about him that are factually not true, that is slander (libel when written). You might get sued in civil court.

This isn't a civil case. The state arrested this woman for saying mean things. And just because we've gotten to the point where the state can legally destroy people financially for the things they say doesn't make it lawful (or should be anything that any rational person supports).

>If you threaten his life because you don't like him, the FBI will come knocking. because that's something for a criminal court.

All that says is government is capable of using violence in order to inflict its will on the people, yet does nothing to speak to the lawfulness of its actions. No one denies the fact that this woman was arrested for she things she said, but what is in contention is whether the state had the lawful authority to do so

1

DusktheWolf t1_j151313 wrote

How would one prevent continued harassment in your system?

1

celebrityDick t1_j1555ll wrote

> How would one prevent continued harassment in your system?

Probably depends on the form the harassment takes. In this case, you can report bullying to whatever social media platform you're using. Minors in particular have extra protections.

People don't have a right not to be bullied, but they do have the right to choose their associations and to choose the situations in which they place themselves.

For instance if you are a member of a gym and are getting bullied at the gym, you can complain to the owner. The gym owner can remove the bully. If the gym owner refuses to do anything, you can take your business elsewhere.

0

DusktheWolf t1_j15jawq wrote

In other words, "Fuck you if you're a minority." Or anyone society deems lesser.

1

pure_hate_MI t1_j144fyj wrote

>Obviously on 1st amendment grounds.

Do you post anything that isn't a libertarian smooth brain take?

0