I'm glad it was 6-3, but I'd love to hear some explanation from any of the 3 on why they think the state legislature would have absolute power over the most important right we have. That's worrisome.
There is no explanation they most likely did it for political reasons and I can almost guarantee Clarence Thomas was one one the 3 that man hates any type of progress or anything threating the republican party chances of completely taking over the u.s .
read their dissent. You are straw manning the dissent from the news. They argued the case was moot. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Who owns ya, baby? Jim's blood relative Harlan, that's who... Of COURSE it's worrisome, they are waging WAR on the USA... - and WINNING! Jack Smith won't be able to stop this and Biden apparently will not, so here we go...
How did this even make it to scotus? Our government is set on checks and balances and nothing a state legislature does can be immune from judicial review.
thats like telling a sodomite to quit telling little boys they should be wearing a wig and a dress sucking D' in full view of teachers and classmates forcing the student to agree to their perversion.
@@notreally2406 😂 There won't be a RepubIican Party in America soon. I'm gIad what we're doing on the Ieft, if we could crippIe conservatism in Germany, how is the US different?
It works both ways, both sides need checks and balances. Soon as Dems lose one they will be caling to add justices. Don’t be a pawn. Dem news is just selling the story one way.
Threatening a witness or juror by any method in a Court case should be also treated as obstructing justice and have long sentences. Several Courts need to be set up today to take on the hundreds of cases of threats in Trump's multiple criminal and civil cases.
Another partisan institution? Who's going to investigate death threats from left constituents as well? I'm sorry, but if you want this done we need to root out yours too! If it's not okay for us it sure as F ain't okay when your people do it either!
The ruling on North Carolina is good, but the 7-2 ruling on threats is awful. SCOTUS is essentially saying you have to *act* on a threat in order for the threat to be prosecutable. That is going to lead to SO MANY more threats. Awful decision.
There needs to be a sign of intent, which can be what they say not just an “act”. Democrats are striving to take away free speech among other rights. In NY they have been trying to make referring to people as illegal aliens or illegal immigrants as hate speech. In spite of those terms being in statutes.
Whether or not you threaten anyone, constantly contacting them after they have made it plain that they don't want you to contact them is harassment. When they block your calls and you change your phone number to continue the contact, that is stalking.
Interesting to note that the two justices who are publicly under so much scrutiny for being influenced by dark money from far right conservatives were not among the majority opinion. Also interesting to note that justice Alito decided not to write an opinion for or against this right wing fringe theory about the independent state legislature’s powers to set the rules of, and to determine the outcomes of federal elections. At the same time justice Thomas, who is also under heavy scrutiny for accepting favours from dark money, conservatives wrote a dissenting opinion in favour of the theory. This decision will certainly help peoples opinions about the supreme court but at the same time it highlights the questions, the public have about the independence of justice, Alito and Thomas and the controversy swirling around them relating to dark money influence.
This decision doesn't change the abuses we see in Florida. The legislature drew a district map, and DeSantis didn't like it. DeSantis drew his own Congressional district map. The State Supreme Court has 6 of 7 members appointed or approved by DeSantis. They rubber stamp everything DeSantis proposes.
Decent reporting guys but PLEASE pronounce your Ts and D’s. Ugh. Nails on a chalkboard. You’re in journalism !! Enunciate. It’s not “Threa-ened”. It’s “threatened”
Hallelujah again for the 4th time! First it was purple Wisconsin, then red Alabama, then red Louisiana, and now purple North Carolina! I can't believe I'm saying this to such a politicized supreme court, but THANK YOU AND BRAVO SCOTUS!!!
dont celebrate to soon biden intends to over ride the supreme court on roe vs wade and make abortion legal again along with this perversion he will use this as a platform to stay in office, and with perversion being widely accepted by the Godless in our society he might get what he wants!
I used to have EXCELLENT spelling skills, because what I read was proofread by professionals to insure proper grammar and spelling. That ship sailed with the first chat room. Between the poor education in so many regions and the lack of caring enough to even turn on spellcheck - fuhgeddaboudit... But good catch, I usually see those and didn't.
Enough with the histrionics already... if you elected state representatives are passing basic laws on voting, that's hardly a dictatorship. They were elected by the people in the first place, remember.
I am straight,and doesn't bother me. Who cares what others do? Sounds like you want to be a "dic"tator, like don the CON. If gays want to marry, let them. Geez, get off the kool aid and religous control wagon.
threatening speech can be a slippery slope. There is a difference between venting anger and intending harm. People need to know the difference between venting and intent and offer freedom to those who seek mental help to those who have intent but chose to be talked down. Threats come from all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons and should be met with online bans not jail time. If the threats can be traced to an account and the account traced to a person then the punishment should be required therapy and sensitivity training upon both the threat maker and the target of the threat. We have to realize if we make people angary at us we are part to blame. Ideal this would be case by case as each case is different. But people don't get angary for no reason. some times the target of there anger is a legit horrible le person who still doesn't deserve a threat but who needs to be aware that they are the cause of there own threat. If had they acted differently things would never have escalated.
@@andyiswonderful often the victim IS the bully , there just good at PLAYING victim JK Rowling for example would not be hated by trans people if she did not say anti trans statements she is to blame for there death threats to her and BOTH she and the trans people need to sit down in a room together and have therapy together.
Judicial review allows citizens to challenge government actions that are illegal. Either they are based on laws beyond the jurisdiction of the legislature or the government is doing something the legislature has not authorized them to do. IOW, it's a remedy when government is breaking the law. Governments that obey the law have nothing to fear.
Voting rights are always manipulated, corporate companies always crumble, sides always destroy their own side. Survivors always perish from their wrong decisions.
Let's not all run out and start threatening people. If it's knowing or "reckless" threats, it can still lead to jail time. Discerning and showing the mental state of the person at the time they made the threats -- that's the trick that prosecutors will now have to focus on. I figure, if you can't control your temper you probably shouldn't be on social media anyway.
No, but a hell of a lot of Fox people would. Give me an example of a msm person using threatening language...and I'll be happy to pull up a thousand things said on the right.
sure genius.. hire professionals instead of interns will all the money they are making from your youtube subscription fees .. again, how much do you pay to for these vids? 😂😂
I am curious on how they define "Threatening Speech?" I hope it does far more good than harm. I wonder where that line in the middle will be that will draw into what is defined as threatening speech and what will slip below that line as Freedom of Speech? I think this could be a good law if enacted appropriately.
"Appropriate" is NOT a word known to the MAGAT. "Appropriations," maybe. But now the immediate test line is the EXTREME edge, both Left and Right. How far can it POSSIBLY go - The MAGATs WILL aim there - ALWAYS. Marge and Matt demand it. Gym watches. M&Ms to Russian collusion to nuclear secret sales, all part of the alternate fact universe calling itself MAGA.
They didn't speak to what is and what is not threatening speech . They said the intent of the person has to be proved , but that it can be to the lowest standard of "Recklessness" Ergo prosecutors need to do more work than merely presenting text . So in a way , this adds a check to the system that convicts online threatening speech.
You freak do that because she needs to follow Social Security death the fat on Social Security that is a big deal Social Security biz business is involved with that. Yeah, GOP cannot be involved with everything they can’t do that.
These are not comparable. Being sad they can't legally interfere with elections thereby ending democracy is not comparable to the devastation of stripping women of their bodily autonomy, crippling financial futures, suffocating their freedom to pursue careers and education and travel. And all without any child support enforcement measures being buckled down on on any real consequences for child abandonment by the many men in the situations where abortion is used who don't do their part in the parenting of an unplanned child. Not to mention that women will die. Yeah that's not comparable at all. Not even in the same universe.
NC finally had something getting close to equal representation under the law and of course republicans had to mess that up. But at least they were honest about it and said they were protecting gerrymandering.
What, listing the cases the Supreme Court just decided on? Yes, I should hope so. The more important question you should be asking yourself is “is this the quality of post I want to go out with, in 2023?”
There is nothing productive about hate speech. We should have laws against it. But, at this point, people can speak of violence, carry a gun but only if they intend to act on it can they be held liable (but by then it will be too late). Freedom?
The Court's decision on stalking was reasonable. The prosecution must always prove criminal intent. In practice, this is fairly simple because people are assumed to have intent for their actions. The onus is then on the accused to show they had no intent, for example they could plead insanity. Shame on Colorado for rejecting basic principles of law that are central to democratic society.
@@carrieullrich5059 Since the law assumes that the accused has intent for his actions, there's a next to zero percent chance he would have been acquitted of stalking. By removing a defence that is available in every other criminal prosecution, lack of intent, the state lost this case. That intent or recklessness is a necessary element of guilt has always been an essential part of criminal law in common law, civil and Islamic systems. It's even part of the legal systems of China, North Korea, and Iran. The U.S. convicts millions of people of crimes every year and one out of three Americans have criminal records. In every case the accused can argue lack of intent or recklessness. It doesn't seem too onerous to the prosecution.
If the Court can overturn affirmative action and Rowe vs. Ward, it should overturn the possession of sixgun revolvers and their ammo. They hadn't even been invented at the time of the 2nd amendment. Create new single-shot pistols and rifles and new ammo for only them. Previous ammo should be illegal. And if people make ammo for illegal guns, prosecute.
@@rhandley1000 You have your term. Fine. Of course I want these guns banned. We should only allow weapons that existed at the time of the 2nd amendment.
@@CharlesMatheny What reasons do you want to allow only 18th Century weapons? Mass shootings, gun violence, gang wars, general distrust of those who own these weapons, all the above? Its not my term, is the common term for that type of gun - just trying to help.
I was stalked in in my high school years. He turned out to be the son of the prior owner. He hid in the boat lifts next store when the police arrived. 😮 yeah
@@notreally2406 The conservative movement won't be here in a decade or 2, and that delights me. Oh, aII the good things we pIan to do with this country and its peopIe. ❤
@@archangelgaming8077 We shaII see. I see the worId we buiId upon the Ieftovers of the present one to be a huge improvement. If this is the best Western CiviIization has, it wiII be repIaced
TO THE RETHUGLICON PARTY: TOO BAD YOU CAN'T GERRYMANDER ANYMORE! AND TOO BAD YOUR LEGISLATURES CAN'T PICK THE 2024 WINNER WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO SO!
@denverlilly3669 I can say I'm gonna kick your ass all day long and not get arrested..try again...watch...Im kick your ass...see..no cops are showing up.
@@denverlilly3669 that's correct so Maxine waters Rosy O'Donnell and all the people calling for violence against republicans and Trump should be arrested !!!%
The first Amendment does indeed potect most speech, BUT it is definitely not a free pass to threaten, harass, or otherwise violate the rights of others. The SCOTUS has ruled that obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography is not free speech. Plus the first Amendment only protects you from government censorship. Businesses, social media platforms, and other non government controlled places can tell you what speech is allowed and what's not. Please learn about the government and how it runs and what each Amendment means and what is ruled before you comment.
@jonplays395 it protects you from more than government censorship..if I'm on public property and I want to speak, ANYONE who attempts to stop me is violating my right..doesn't have to be a government official.
I'm glad it was 6-3, but I'd love to hear some explanation from any of the 3 on why they think the state legislature would have absolute power over the most important right we have. That's worrisome.
There is no explanation they most likely did it for political reasons and I can almost guarantee Clarence Thomas was one one the 3 that man hates any type of progress or anything threating the republican party chances of completely taking over the u.s .
read their dissent. You are straw manning the dissent from the news. They argued the case was moot. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Who owns ya, baby? Jim's blood relative Harlan, that's who... Of COURSE it's worrisome, they are waging WAR on the USA...
- and WINNING! Jack Smith won't be able to stop this and Biden apparently will not, so here we go...
Read constitution, they didn't go by it.
@@scimaniacthe case wasnt moot. Certain clowns were trying to circumvent the rules and make it against judicial review.
Don't believe anything that Justice Thomas says...
Believe that he voted in these two cases based on whomever gave him the highest bribes.
@@davemathews7890
I don't need to believe, it is obvious.
He is a judicial wh0re.
And a cheap one at that.
I don't.
How did this even make it to scotus? Our government is set on checks and balances and nothing a state legislature does can be immune from judicial review.
not in the mind of maga republicans. They don't believe in legit elections
republicans...
Tell THAT to ANY Red State Governor... FREEDUMB!
GOP's desire to end democracy.
Perhaps they just wanted to put it to bed.
“Now please PLEASE stop investigating our bad conduct and corruption”
thats like telling a sodomite to quit telling little boys they should be wearing a wig and a dress sucking D' in full view of teachers and classmates forcing the student to agree to their perversion.
Sincerely, the Dems
@@notreally2406 😂 There won't be a RepubIican Party in America soon. I'm gIad what we're doing on the Ieft, if we could crippIe conservatism in Germany, how is the US different?
“No, GOP run Legislatures, you are not above the law”.
That’s the main message here.
It works both ways, both sides need checks and balances. Soon as Dems lose one they will be caling to add justices. Don’t be a pawn. Dem news is just selling the story one way.
Threatening a witness or juror by any method in a Court case should be also treated as obstructing justice and have long sentences. Several Courts need to be set up today to take on the hundreds of cases of threats in Trump's multiple criminal and civil cases.
Another partisan institution? Who's going to investigate death threats from left constituents as well? I'm sorry, but if you want this done we need to root out yours too! If it's not okay for us it sure as F ain't okay when your people do it either!
The ruling on North Carolina is good, but the 7-2 ruling on threats is awful. SCOTUS is essentially saying you have to *act* on a threat in order for the threat to be prosecutable. That is going to lead to SO MANY more threats. Awful decision.
There needs to be a sign of intent, which can be what they say not just an “act”. Democrats are striving to take away free speech among other rights. In NY they have been trying to make referring to people as illegal aliens or illegal immigrants as hate speech. In spite of those terms being in statutes.
Also going to lead to a lot of people getting their ass beat too.
“Threating speech” Great Job, editor.
LOL first thing I noticed.
Whether or not you threaten anyone, constantly contacting them after they have made it plain that they don't want you to contact them is harassment. When they block your calls and you change your phone number to continue the contact, that is stalking.
Interesting to note that the two justices who are publicly under so much scrutiny for being influenced by dark money from far right conservatives were not among the majority opinion. Also interesting to note that justice Alito decided not to write an opinion for or against this right wing fringe theory about the independent state legislature’s powers to set the rules of, and to determine the outcomes of federal elections. At the same time justice Thomas, who is also under heavy scrutiny for accepting favours from dark money, conservatives wrote a dissenting opinion in favour of the theory. This decision will certainly help peoples opinions about the supreme court but at the same time it highlights the questions, the public have about the independence of justice, Alito and Thomas and the controversy swirling around them relating to dark money influence.
Good, now the Legislature can't overwrite the Vote of the People.
What is threating speech? Do you mean threatening?
This decision doesn't change the abuses we see in Florida. The legislature drew a district map, and DeSantis didn't like it. DeSantis drew his own Congressional district map. The State Supreme Court has 6 of 7 members appointed or approved by DeSantis. They rubber stamp everything DeSantis proposes.
I heard it was 6:3 not 7:2.
Correct. 6/3
Decent reporting guys but PLEASE pronounce your Ts and D’s. Ugh. Nails on a chalkboard. You’re in journalism !! Enunciate. It’s not “Threa-ened”. It’s “threatened”
You should email ABC news and ask them to refund all the money you paid them for this report.
Hallelujah again for the 4th time! First it was purple Wisconsin, then red Alabama, then red Louisiana, and now purple North Carolina! I can't believe I'm saying this to such a politicized supreme court, but THANK YOU AND BRAVO SCOTUS!!!
dont celebrate to soon biden intends to over ride the supreme court on roe vs wade and make abortion legal again along with this perversion he will use this as a platform to stay in office, and with perversion being widely accepted by the Godless in our society he might get what he wants!
@user-lb9wj6qy2pFor real. Just a bunch of racist nazis.
The 3 justices who dissented: Gorsuch, Alito and (of course) Thomas!
I'm betting the 3 who voted for this are the 3 who had the most deposited into their off-shore bank accounts.
Are ‘Hang her up’ or ‘hang him up’ threating speech?
@@angeryrat to a dark place this line of thought precarious. great care we must take
@@angeryrat No, Trump supporters do.
"Alright got the bird in the cage. There's the hook, can you hang her up for me?"
Are you holding a noose and have swastika tats while you're screaming it?
Is “threating” a word? Shouldn’t it be “threatening”. Check the video title
I used to have EXCELLENT spelling skills, because what I read was proofread by professionals to insure proper grammar and spelling. That ship sailed with the first chat room. Between the poor education in so many regions and the lack of caring enough to even turn on spellcheck - fuhgeddaboudit... But good catch, I usually see those and didn't.
Threating speaches what about Bidens threat speaches?
"Threating" ? Edit yourselves away from relevance.
Should have been 9-0
Enough with the histrionics already... if you elected state representatives are passing basic laws on voting, that's hardly a dictatorship. They were elected by the people in the first place, remember.
Don't States do that now
Close down polling stations
Fix hours
Decided on mail voting
Yes but this was arguing that they had absolute authority and saying that state courts had not authority to get involved.
6 to three....that is f-ed up. It should have been 9 to ZERP!
Need to overturn gay marriage
Not gonna happen. Cry harder, bigot.
I am straight,and doesn't bother me. Who cares what others do?
Sounds like you want to be a "dic"tator, like don the CON. If gays want to marry, let them.
Geez, get off the kool aid and religous control wagon.
No. We definitely do not need to.
@@cat_city2009do you even know what bigot means?
@@notreally2406
Yes. If you want gay marriage to be banned, you are definitely a bigot.
threatening speech can be a slippery slope. There is a difference between venting anger and intending harm. People need to know the difference between venting and intent and offer freedom to those who seek mental help to those who have intent but chose to be talked down. Threats come from all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons and should be met with online bans not jail time. If the threats can be traced to an account and the account traced to a person then the punishment should be required therapy and sensitivity training upon both the threat maker and the target of the threat. We have to realize if we make people angary at us we are part to blame. Ideal this would be case by case as each case is different. But people don't get angary for no reason. some times the target of there anger is a legit horrible le person who still doesn't deserve a threat but who needs to be aware that they are the cause of there own threat. If had they acted differently things would never have escalated.
"If we make people angry at us we are part to blame."
Not always. Sounds like you are blaming the victim, for some reason.
@@andyiswonderful often the victim IS the bully , there just good at PLAYING victim JK Rowling for example would not be hated by trans people if she did not say anti trans statements she is to blame for there death threats to her and BOTH she and the trans people need to sit down in a room together and have therapy together.
Slop is always slippery!
Telling someone "I'm going to k:ll you" it's NOT a slippery slope it's a threat.
@@andyiswonderful right. He sounds stupid.
So I can still say, "Your momma," online?"
you just did, im on the phone right now with the fbi
@@CruelQuertos Your momma!
@@TheModelOmega thats it youre getting subpoenad
@@CruelQuertos Yeah, well I'm subpoenaing your momma! XD
@@TheModelOmega
Let's get off mommas, especially because I just got off yours;)
I'm ashamed of this Supreme Court .
"threating speech" ? has someone invented a new English word ?
Judicial review allows citizens to challenge government actions that are illegal. Either they are based on laws beyond the jurisdiction of the legislature or the government is doing something the legislature has not authorized them to do. IOW, it's a remedy when government is breaking the law. Governments that obey the law have nothing to fear.
Voting rights are always manipulated, corporate companies always crumble, sides always destroy their own side. Survivors always perish from their wrong decisions.
I think it's irresponsible of the network to omit specific information about the threats made in this case.
So they were able to take on this vote but what about they others?
tomorrow there will be more
How about jail time for the people who submitted these BS gerrymandered theories and maps?
Let's not all run out and start threatening people. If it's knowing or "reckless" threats, it can still lead to jail time. Discerning and showing the mental state of the person at the time they made the threats -- that's the trick that prosecutors will now have to focus on. I figure, if you can't control your temper you probably shouldn't be on social media anyway.
Jail time Good threaten speech. Social Media changed the landscape of free speech. 1/6 speech from Dump would be a case to se
So does this mean ABC reporters goes to jail
No, but a hell of a lot of Fox people would.
Give me an example of a msm person using threatening language...and I'll be happy to pull up a thousand things said on the right.
I hear a lot of framing in the first 53 seconds of this news report
Stop with the whole Voter suppression nonsense
Who voted in favor ? And who voted against.
Clarence, Neil and Alito against.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
Good news 👏
Tiime four hiaring profreederss fur vidio hEdlines.
sure genius.. hire professionals instead of interns will all the money they are making from your youtube subscription fees .. again, how much do you pay to for these vids? 😂😂
@@angeryrat True, but I wasn't being paid for MY content. ;)
@@angeryrat So at what pay rate should they be required to proofread and correct mistakes?
How about this upcoming election (up/down vote), we all vote for qualified candidates, leave the circus behind
I am curious on how they define "Threatening Speech?" I hope it does far more good than harm. I wonder where that line in the middle will be that will draw into what is defined as threatening speech and what will slip below that line as Freedom of Speech?
I think this could be a good law if enacted appropriately.
How would any law that removes a check and balance system be a good law? Unilateral power should not exist in the US
"Appropriate" is NOT a word known to the MAGAT. "Appropriations," maybe. But now the immediate test line is the EXTREME edge, both Left and Right. How far can it POSSIBLY go - The MAGATs WILL aim there - ALWAYS. Marge and Matt demand it. Gym watches.
M&Ms to Russian collusion to nuclear secret sales, all part of the alternate fact universe calling itself MAGA.
They didn't speak to what is and what is not threatening speech .
They said the intent of the person has to be proved , but that it can be to the lowest standard of "Recklessness"
Ergo prosecutors need to do more work than merely presenting text .
So in a way , this adds a check to the system that convicts online threatening speech.
Threating
Flat on there face.
You freak do that because she needs to follow Social Security death the fat on Social Security that is a big deal Social Security biz business is involved with that. Yeah, GOP cannot be involved with everything they can’t do that.
Beset nomine, et Artis Pluris Emen; asti Poitis Ulnum Omnibus.
-Kevin Wayne Jenner
Special Prayer of Law, an Supreme Court Address.
Excellent news!
7 to the 2 most corrupt. Thomas and Alito ?
Threating?
Who writes this stuff? Lemme guess
Threating? Who set the journalistic bar so low that monkeys with keyboards are giving us our news?
abc, NBC, C BS, P BS, CNN & Fox
@@toddodge9244FOX, not so much
Definitely, Faux news is digging hard for rock bottom.
At least the SC is balanced in upsetting both sides. Made blue unhappy with abortion and red sad with elections.
...with both *6-3* decisions-
These are not comparable. Being sad they can't legally interfere with elections thereby ending democracy is not comparable to the devastation of stripping women of their bodily autonomy, crippling financial futures, suffocating their freedom to pursue careers and education and travel. And all without any child support enforcement measures being buckled down on on any real consequences for child abandonment by the many men in the situations where abortion is used who don't do their part in the parenting of an unplanned child. Not to mention that women will die. Yeah that's not comparable at all. Not even in the same universe.
@@amandajean33181the elections now are being controlled...that needs to be stopped
"Rowe vs. Wade". Jesus.
I tried to correct that too. But the entry was gone.
I tried to correct that too, but the entry was gone.
Separation of powers.
Lol. 😂😂😂😂 very higher heredity. Hold world in one mind.
3 conservatives, 3 liberals, and 3 nihilists.
threating speech?
@@angeryrat of course i can and I'm not even a paid editor for a national news station.
@@angeryrat Yes, and the fact that we can point out errors made by ABC News is really a joke.
Found the ABC intern
@@angeryrat Surely you can expect journalists to proofread the titles of their own videos.
@@angeryrat One can do both, you know - two things at once - you should try it.
NC finally had something getting close to equal representation under the law and of course republicans had to mess that up. But at least they were honest about it and said they were protecting gerrymandering.
"Threating speech" ... boy, this is journalism in 2023, eh?
What, listing the cases the Supreme Court just decided on? Yes, I should hope so. The more important question you should be asking yourself is “is this the quality of post I want to go out with, in 2023?”
@@Praetoreon *woosh*
Great panel and discussion 👍
Democrats checks and balances????? Thats a joke!
You republican traitor scum bag . It’s time for your cult party to back into hiding .
@@Joeg_wake up. Get off msm. Learn the truth
There is nothing productive about hate speech. We should have laws against it. But, at this point, people can speak of violence, carry a gun but only if they intend to act on it can they be held liable (but by then it will be too late). Freedom?
The Court's decision on stalking was reasonable. The prosecution must always prove criminal intent. In practice, this is fairly simple because people are assumed to have intent for their actions. The onus is then on the accused to show they had no intent, for example they could plead insanity. Shame on Colorado for rejecting basic principles of law that are central to democratic society.
So we just wait politely to be murdered by our stalker first? So it proves the criminal intent?
How is that reasonable? 🙄
@@carrieullrich5059 Since the law assumes that the accused has intent for his actions, there's a next to zero percent chance he would have been acquitted of stalking. By removing a defence that is available in every other criminal prosecution, lack of intent, the state lost this case.
That intent or recklessness is a necessary element of guilt has always been an essential part of criminal law in common law, civil and Islamic systems. It's even part of the legal systems of China, North Korea, and Iran.
The U.S. convicts millions of people of crimes every year and one out of three Americans have criminal records. In every case the accused can argue lack of intent or recklessness. It doesn't seem too onerous to the prosecution.
If the Court can overturn affirmative action and Rowe vs. Ward, it should overturn the possession of sixgun revolvers and their ammo. They hadn't even been invented at the time of the 2nd amendment. Create new single-shot pistols and rifles and new ammo for only them. Previous ammo should be illegal. And if people make ammo for illegal guns, prosecute.
What the hell are sixgun revolvers?
@@rhandley1000 Revolvers that fire six bullets.
@@CharlesMatheny That's a six-shot or six-shooter. They have been around for about 150 years. You would rather ban those instead of semi-autos?
@@rhandley1000 You have your term. Fine. Of course I want these guns banned. We should only allow weapons that existed at the time of the 2nd amendment.
@@CharlesMatheny What reasons do you want to allow only 18th Century weapons? Mass shootings, gun violence, gang wars, general distrust of those who own these weapons, all the above?
Its not my term, is the common term for that type of gun - just trying to help.
Vote for Democrat 2024. Which I played vote for Democrat 2024.
“We don’t want to chill speech.” Yet that’s exactly what democrats want to do.
Obvious strawman argument is obvious.
Ummmm what
🤔 I dont recall democrats banning books, banning crt, banning parents rights with trans children, trying to ban ban and boycott drag and lgbtq events.
meanwhile, Republicans keep trying to ban books and outlaw protest.
@@damham5689then you've got a lot of homework to do
I was stalked in in my high school years. He turned out to be the son of the prior owner. He hid in the boat lifts next store when the police arrived. 😮 yeah
I think this bot is broken.
So a win for the People, but also win for the predators and Trump 'activists.'
No
@@notreally2406 The conservative movement won't be here in a decade or 2, and that delights me. Oh, aII the good things we pIan to do with this country and its peopIe. ❤
@@améliehester6996 sounds really bad
@@archangelgaming8077 We shaII see. I see the worId we buiId upon the Ieftovers of the present one to be a huge improvement. If this is the best Western CiviIization has, it wiII be repIaced
TO THE RETHUGLICON PARTY: TOO BAD YOU CAN'T GERRYMANDER ANYMORE! AND TOO BAD YOUR LEGISLATURES CAN'T PICK THE 2024 WINNER WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO SO!
This is America free speech is not a crime !!!%
It is if you're actively threatening someone
@denverlilly3669 I can say I'm gonna kick your ass all day long and not get arrested..try again...watch...Im kick your ass...see..no cops are showing up.
@@denverlilly3669 that's correct so Maxine waters Rosy O'Donnell and all the people calling for violence against republicans and Trump should be arrested !!!%
The first Amendment does indeed potect most speech, BUT it is definitely not a free pass to threaten, harass, or otherwise violate the rights of others. The SCOTUS has ruled that obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography is not free speech. Plus the first Amendment only protects you from government censorship. Businesses, social media platforms, and other non government controlled places can tell you what speech is allowed and what's not. Please learn about the government and how it runs and what each Amendment means and what is ruled before you comment.
@jonplays395 it protects you from more than government censorship..if I'm on public property and I want to speak, ANYONE who attempts to stop me is violating my right..doesn't have to be a government official.
it's time they did thier job
FINALLYYYYYY