Re: Jewish Journalist Arrested for Objecting to Islamic Terror Symbol in Grocery Store

On Mar 7, 2025 at 2:12:59 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 3/7/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:41:30 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

 On 3/7/2025 3:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

   On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> 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."

Why do you think some generalized AI-generated description of cyber-stalking
is in any way relevant here?

What's at issue is the statute in North Carolina specifically and the 1st
Amendment in general.

As I described above, Rachmuth's one post did not meet even one of the several
elements of the crime in the statute, and even if it did, the statute itself
would then fail because it would criminalize speech that is protected under
the 1st Amendment.

 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.

 
I have no idea whether she was guilty of cyberstalking or of anything
else.

I do.