Welcome to California

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
ed
Posts: 33059
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Welcome to California

Post by ed » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:08 pm

Eugene Volokh on A Prosecution For Insulting Facebook Posts
https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/29/euge ... ook-posts/

Unbelieveable shit ... Worthy of Antifa
Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device ... to another person is ... guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.

The posts, the California AG's office argues, were "were made with the specific intent to annoy and harass the members of the ICSC," because Feigin "was not trying to engage in any kind of political discussion but instead trying to vex members of the ICSC with his thoughts about their religion." The posts are criminal because they constitute "repeated harassment from those who wish to mock and disparage their religion," and, "[r]ather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate," are "cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it."
https://reason.com/volokh/2017/12/29/ca ... lting-post

And this is precisely why we should all have a zero tolerance for assaults on free speech.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1720 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by Grammatron » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:54 pm

Troubling.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67548
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3394 times
Been thanked: 2157 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by Doctor X » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:38 pm

Just stab it with your steely knife.

Or, in your case, Gram, your steely dan.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!
AL Champions!!!

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10326
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by Skeeve » Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:54 pm

ed wrote:....
And this is precisely why we should all have a zero tolerance for assaults on free speech.
Agreed!

Amazing this is getting court time and some poor bastard has to spend a bunch of money defending himself.

I thought the SCOTUS hashed this out already...
Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22085
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 362 times
Been thanked: 394 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by gnome » Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:24 pm

If I'm not mistaken, there are effectively written harassment laws that don't violate free speech. What kind of threshold might be typical of those?

Would not be surprised if CA decided to reinvent the wheel instead of learning what works in other states.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33059
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by ed » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:22 am

If they can block him and they didn't how can they complain? And Cali is judging the content of the speech, not the fact of it. That is why this is a non-starter.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22085
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 362 times
Been thanked: 394 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by gnome » Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:05 am

I don't know about this case, but in an actual harassment case you could block someone only for them to create a new account intentionally to get around the block. Your point is very salient about the "content" issue though.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67548
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3394 times
Been thanked: 2157 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by Doctor X » Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:12 am

You can check out any time you like. . . .

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!
AL Champions!!!

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33059
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by ed » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:16 am

gnome wrote:I don't know about this case, but in an actual harassment case you could block someone only for them to create a new account intentionally to get around the block. Your point is very salient about the "content" issue though.
If they block and he comes back they get a TRO. If he violates that into the slammer. No need to make a judgement about his speech.

You can see why speech is held to such a high level of protection, it is sacred only until your ox is gored.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by RCC: Act II » Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:36 pm

ed wrote:
gnome wrote:I don't know about this case, but in an actual harassment case you could block someone only for them to create a new account intentionally to get around the block. Your point is very salient about the "content" issue though.
If they block and he comes back they get a TRO. If he violates that into the slammer. No need to make a judgement about his speech.

You can see why speech is held to such a high level of protection, it is sacred only until your ox is gored.
The "content" part of it more requires that there is no relationship between the content and the listener, where there is here to some degree. Had the posts been totally unrelated offensive crap, that would be different. Other than that, it is as you suggest. This is intended to be a stalking type statute.

This is just goofy prosecutorial overreach. From the motion linked to in the article, it sounds like they are alleging a legit felony for the threatening phone call and are piling on a bit with some at best questionable misdemeanors because they have problems of proof on the felony. This is an (IMO) extremely unethical tactic.

Which, is really goddamn ironic now that I think about it. They are basing their allegations on his lack of good faith, and the allegations themselves are arguably not in good faith.

I mean:
Rather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate, Defendant's posts are cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it."
In other words, debate that isn't polite.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Welcome to California

Post by RCC: Act II » Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:55 pm

I think this is a lame effort to stickhandle around the restrictions on "bad acts" evidence. They want to get him on the felony, but they have problems IDing the guy as the caller. However, they have these posts. Unfortunately, the posts are different acts, and it is generally a rule of evidence (I'm assuming also in California) that you can't bring in other bad acts of a criminal defendant to show that he's an asshole to imply he's also guilty of the alleged crime.

They might be able to get the posts in under some exception, but by making the posts part of the criminal case the other bad acts rule wouldn't apply because it would be part of the proof necessary for those charges. So they charge this misdemeanor bullshit, knowing that even if it loses it will poison the jury a bit.

This is kind of unusual because of the speech angle, but pretty standard otherwise.