Yep. At least, i don’t think I left anything significant out.
What changed?
Main difference I saw was that the title didn’t imply the repeated harassingish nature of the multiple emails with an alias (to bypass being spammed?).
Yes: Misuse of a reflexive pronoun. Let him rot in jail.
OK, that’s fair. There were two e-mails, not one, that were the basis of charges, and others before the two that were not charged as criminal acts but created a climate.
Why, Bricks, if I didn’t know any better, I’d almost say you’re trying to get people to respond on the basis of their intuitions about criminal law rather than one informed by statute and case law. Hmmmm…
IF the student is still enrolled at the facility where Avery teaches
and
IF Avery has not taken a leave to fufllfill his statehouse duties
then MAYBE I can see the harrassment e-mails as a form of “disturbing” Avery’s peace.
On the other hand, as an elected official, (even if not yet seated), Avery is a public figure and no genuine threats were uttered.
There is no way I would support the charges brought based on the information currently presented. (Given some of the e-mails I’ve received as a Mod, I don’t see any reason for Avery to have done anything but ignore them.)
Can’t argue that the emails were “fighting words” which the quoted statute claimed were illegal and not protected by the Constitution. So if that’s true, then I guess the court decided correctly, though the law seems pretty open to abuse.
That said, I think at some point, repeated contentless harrasing emails sent against the clear requests by the receiver for them to stop should be illegal, so I guess I don’t really have a problem with the verdict.
Why that’s absurd.
Well, if by “repeated” you mean two, then I guess so.
If you’d wanted to be clear you really should have mentioned in the OP that the specific “disturbing the peace” law used in this case doesn’t match the concept most people associate with the term.
It was two after the request had been made to stop sending them. How many more is it supposed to take?
Why doesn’t it?
The law in question:
Here’s Iowa’s:
Here’s the local ordinance for Virginia Beach, Virginia:
[quote]
…disturb the peace of others by violent, tumultuous, offensive or obstreperous conduct or by threatening, challenging to fight, assaulting, fighting or striking another.
[quote]
Connecticut:
How many similar laws do you want?
Obviously this isn’t a familiar application of the law. But that’s sorta the point of the thread. There’s nothing outrageously unique about the text of Nebraska’s law – is there?
The criticism was “Why, Bricks, if I didn’t know any better, I’d almost say you’re trying to get people to respond on the basis of their intuitions about criminal law rather than one informed by statute and case law. Hmmmm…”
People’s intuitions about the criminal law of disturbing the peace are that it does NOT apply to individual persons - as is explicitly demonstrated by many of the posts in the first half of the thread. Does this mean that everybody’s intuitions about the law are wrong? Maybe. Were you unaware of this? Did you not notice any of the posts commenting on the assumed difference?
That’s what I’m interested in. Can a state senator-elect say, “Stop sending me e-mail” to an individual, and when the indivdual sends him mor e-mail, it’s a crime under this statute?
I have no idea. What difference does it make? People can comment on their intuitions of the law just as readily as they can on the actual law, can’t they?
I think almost anything could conceivably be a crime under that statute. I thought Ohio’s disorderly conduct statute was overly broad until I read that one.
Well, yeah, because I’d kill bin Laden…
To clarify, I don’t think Bricker did anything bad or guileful here (although, I would have preferred that he mention that there is no “in public” requirement to breach of the peace–consider that in other states, this crime is called “disorderly conduct,” which might have a different connotation for laypeople). I think it is a perfectly fair question to ask “Does the development of legal precedent in this area reflect what you think the meaning of the statute is?”. Bricker, however, has not always been so congenial to this view, and I thought I should do him the favor of alerting him to potential continuity errors.
Classic harassment case. Courts routinely ignore that they have anything to do with the First Amendment. Conviction is routine in these matters.
I suppose that would be because you don’t have a First Amendment right to harass and revile others on their private email accounts.