[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/newsplus/ -News +

Read the News!
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


THE RULES
Is It Wet Yet?


File: 67f750895b6a2c2⋯.jpg (66.52 KB,600x330,20:11,social_media_big_tech_2_IP….jpg)

a317f1 No.301149

By: WND Staff

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving just exactly what constitutes a "threat" on social media.

But the legal experts at the Rutherford Institute have warned that the wrong result could give the government virtually unlimited power to criminalize political speech.

The case at hand comes out of Colorado, which in recent years has been scolded by the high court for its antipathy for the Christian faith.

According to Rutherford, the case is Counterman v. Colorado, through which, its lawyers argue, permission could be given for "the government to use overly broad stalking laws to treat expressive activities on social media as true threats, which are not protected by the First Amendment, without having to prove that the message are both reasonably understood and intended to threaten an illegal act."

https://www.wnd.com/2023/01/court-reviewing-just-constitutes-threat-social-media/

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.


[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]