This Blog Should Not Exist, Part 3.0011: The Supreme Court Has Lost It's Mind

Yeah, I figured I finally had to do this one.

(Yes, the numbering is out of order, but it is a direct descendant of 3.001 -- just not about "nobody".)

The Supreme Court has vacated the stalking conviction of a Colorado man.

They sent back down a conviction of a Colorado stalker of a local singer.  They deemed the "reasonable person test" insufficient for at least online cases (though, sans a weapon or the like, I'd have to wonder how it could apply elsewhere either -- because, until an action takes place, how can you conclude that confronting a person on such a question is not also "speech"?) and said that a new, two-part process must apply:  Not only must the person be aware (whether being made aware by outside parties is sufficient there would be another Constitutional question -- and has been found largely unconstitutional in the same New York statute in which I was, in part, arrested for) that the speech could be seen as threatening, but that the person must also be aware that the speech is reckless.

The Supremes, in Counterman vs. Colorado (6-3), have lost their minds.

You see, especially after my arrest and the like, I do not believe in the First Amendment, nor Freedom of Speech, and I believe every effort is being made to dismantle it -- either above- or below-table.

If we are going to prevent the next Chapman or Bardo or whomever, then there has to be a far stricter situation in which speech, of it's own merit, MUST be sanctioned to prevent violence.

Want a good idea as to an extreme of which this could go?  This "gentleman" was slapped with a restraining order after his ex-wife believed he would kill her on a drunken rampage.

She was right!

On JUNE 15, 2023 Gary Don Barnett shot and killed his wife, his daughter, his 11 year old granddaughter, his 6 year old granddaughter, his 2 year old grandson, and himself. He also shot the soon to be step father.

The face of the Well Regulated Militia. pic.twitter.com/0gg0VzNDsG

— 🔸️The.Angry.Ostrich. (@DaAngryOstrich) June 28, 2023

The courts are now going to have to re-examine the criteria under which online harassment was deemed too broad by the New York courts a number of years back.  Especially in a case where the person does believe they are going there to talk (yes, to "hold the person answerable" (as was said in pre-trial hearings)), the only real way you COULD declare the former to be in scope for a person believed as mentally ill as myself is to enforce it from the outside.

(As "nobody" pointed out.)

Now you have to put out the question as to whether a given person CAN realize their speech is threatening -- and what to do when effectively prosecuting them under that becomes impossible.

Well, as I say:  This Blog Should Not Exist.  There's one way -- it's not polite nor clean, but it is increasingly the only choice you have!