The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals just found a section of Texas’ harassment statute to be unconstitutional; there’s a section that governs sending people harassing text messages; it appears that that provision violates “free speech.”
Not sure I agree with this.
What do YOU say?
Read on.
Can you summarize this, Law?
As I said, a dude sent a bunch of belligerent and insulting messages to a female former counselor of his; the Counselor said she had had no contact with him in two years, and he was charged for sending the messages under the harassment statute.
The messages included crude remarks about her dating, suggested that she was a prostitute, accused her of abusing him, raping him, that she raped him everyday and was encouraging him to kill himself, that she was a terrible therapist and a shitty person and he wanted his money back, etc.
The highest court for criminal appeals in TX then held that the messages were “free speech,” and the statute under which he was charged was an unconstitutional violation of his free speech, at least as applied to him.
I read it. Lock him up. He researched her social life, where she lived, what she did. He’s a threat. Those weren’t just words, it was an act. They were intended to threaten, once he revealed he had details of her personal life.
I think i might be with law and that i fail to see the crime. I understand restraining orders, and what not.
Free speech/first amendment only applies to government actions. Some yahoo spouting nonsense to a private individual that creates a sense of apprehension in the recipient I would argue does not fall within First Amendment. Unless the argument proffered is that the government, by passing a law banning harassment, is in violation of the first amendment. That is a slippery slope. I get the content argument put forth by the court in its opinion. However, that holding tends to focus on people speaking out against the government, not as it relates to specific individual.
This seems to fall into the “you can’t tell fire in a crowded theatre” standard of 1A
The point of the first amendment is to protect your ability to say when the emperor has no clothes. It wasn’t intended to enable us to be jackasses. The founders knew that we are perfectly capable of being jackasses, but they depended on other social institutions to induce us to restrain ourselves. If that isn’t happening, then something has to be done. Our freedoms end where others’ begin.
Fixed, laws were created to protect citizens, but you’re free to be a jack wagon. What is it? battery, threats, harassment following an order, etc etc etc is not. But thats only off taking law’s post at face value, as the only case being made. Too lazy to click on the link
As summary presented, I agree that Tex Court of Criminal Appeals got it wrong.
Hope Tex SC gets involved and overturns this decision.
They can’t.
The TX SC is the highest appeals court for CIVIL matters in TX.
For criminal matters, it is this one.
Ahh, didn’t know that’s how it worked !
Oh well, guess we are stuck with this then. Suppose laws could be crafted to
rein this in some. Don’t like where this leaves us and those that can push the boundaries of harassment.
I mean… where is the crime? It comes across like a bitter ex boyfriend drama to me.
100% certain this guy found all public domain info on her. Thats what youre failing to id here.
By no stretch am i advocating behavior like this, but… its not criminal
Is stalking not criminal? lol be serious
Yes it is, no doubt that i feel that way too olutrain.
Ive been watching some David fleischler (harris county court 4) lately, and youd be shocked at how often criminal cases get thrown out on lack of a case.
Hasn’t the supreme court already ruled that violent threats are not protected? IF so where does that line fit in?
Also is there some sort of civil case potential in an issue like this?
Mmmmm i think this is more applicable to the other thread. This thread is pro-, not against-
Got your free speech threads crossed!
I thought that was the definition of assault
I don’t know, is assault only include physical contact or does it include mental/verbal?
Assault
Law
an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done.
Battery
.
Law
the crime or tort of unconsented physical contact with another person, even where the contact is not violent but merely menacing or offensive.
Thank you professor!
Beat me to it.
Our Law Professor taught us that Assault is a threat to touch while battery is the actual touching. This is why police generally charge people with assault and battery, because it is difficult to have a battery without an assault.
Of course this is the English common law definition; state statutes can change this anytime.
©Copyright 2017 Coogfans.com