DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court overturns online stalking conviction, citing 1st Amendment

So you admit to your paranoia. It is a good first step.

See, for some people English is hard. Being careful as well as prepared and being paranoid are all different things. You're welcome.

It isn't surprising you find English hard when you seem to only read words you wish to read. Makes the meaning very hard to grasp for you I am sure.

But your luncacy here really does show why this ruling (7-2 Kagan writing for the court) is a good thing. You seem threatened by a couple of words on the Internet. The court requiring a higher threshold than merely saying you were threatened is a good thing. Freedom is scary for some people.

As for you, you have no ability to be a threat to me. I've known people exactly like you all of my life. All bluster with nothing more. Wannabe Rambo's for the most part. There's a difference between freedom and freedumb.

So, it's a good thing that the court requires a higher threshold than merely saying you were threatened when it comes to the internet but with stand your ground laws a guy in Florida just sprayed 30 rounds at his pool guy because he didn't recognize him when he saw someone on his pool deck at night.

It seems how much of a threshold you support in just "saying you feel threatened" depends on the topic at hand.

And speaking of someone who didn't read the ruling. The threshold the jury was instructed to follow before this SCOTUS ruling was "something a reasonable person would consider a threat". But I understand how you wouldn't want the standard of reasonable person to be applied.

You do realize that "what a reasonable person would consider a threat" is the same threshold in many stand your ground laws, right? So should the SCOTUS strengthen that requirement as well? I mean since you approve of raising the standards of what a threat is and all.

You don't know jack squat about me.

You have some idea in your delusion fetid imagination and that is all.

But you keep blathering about things, all you have is delusions and paranoia.

I've grown bored with you. It would be different if you could actually present a challenge. And as usual you ignore the question. Typical of an instigator.

Awww look at you thinking you are looking for anything else except a fight.

Whine, pout, rant. Rinse and repeat.

You can approach it however you wish. Kick a rock too if you like.

Kicking a rock is more intellectually stimulating than engaging with you.

Yet you keep at it.

So now being cautious or arming up to protect ourselves from lunatics with firearms is now paranoia?. Lol … oh the irony…..I’ll remind you of this later I’m sure.

He can't see it in himself.

It's not a bad way to pass time at first. But it soon becomes boring.

When some gets their feewings hurt online then points out they are armed... Mayhaps you should focus on the people that think guns are the way to settle disagreements while yelling "gun violence" all the time.

Pffft...

"Turn out the lights, the party's over. They say that all, good things must end." Everyone on this board who reads it has known I've owned firerarms for years. You're still not every good at this.