That’s not how things work but ok.
Right, that’s why I specified a sane police department.
To put your mind at ease, and since another family member got the same text, My DIL called the sheriff’s department.
She said the CID, laughed. He told her disregard the messages. Delete them. They were a joke.
There you have it.
Ok sure
Plus, I’m wondering what municipal or state criminal offence is being committed that would fall into municipal or state police jurisdiction? I can see federal telco regulations, or maybe federal civil rights laws, but I don’t see a state issue?
I know I live in Hicksville, Redstate…With local, barely competent yahoos on the Sheriff’s department.
He still should’ve just took a report, without my DIL having to press the issue.
What criminal offence should he have taken a report on?
Are you implying that a police department that just ignores terrorism in the community they’re supposed to be serving and protecting is sane?
There’s ways to write up a report from taxpayers. There’s not an individual criminal. So no arrest warrant
But if they take the reports, just like they do on Bigfoot sightings. Mark a file folder “Racist threats against citizens” a. Just like is happening allover the South. b. Print out of texts, incl.
How hard is that?
DIL already had the print outs in a folder. All he needed to do was add a label and write words on it.
See Brandenburg v Ohio:
What imminent lawless action is the text Beck got likely to produce? On the face of it, the idea of collecting people and putting them on non-existent plantations to pick non-existent cotton is ridiculous. Because it’s so out there, it makes any allegation of imminent unlawful action extremely unlikely.
Creepy as hell, racist, unsettling, all those things. But likely protected speech.
I think you are being very unrealistic. It’s not Beck’s neighbor. It’s most likely some troll farm overseas. Even if it’s happening within the confines of the United States they are using websites that anonymously assign temporary phone numbers. Those sites have no records to subpoena. They don’t know themselves who uses the numbers so you can’t get information from them even if they would respond to a local subpoena. It’s happened in 32 states. Do you think the FBI is interested in hearing about one other instance in Arkansas? Have you tried to talk to the FBI? I have. They aren’t interested in individual local cases. They don’t have the resources. The most you’ll get is a “we are aware of the issue.” The city of Atlanta has stated they are aware of the issue and aren’t investigating. If a big city department can’t do anything what do you think a small local department can do?
Since this has received a lot of attention it wouldn’t surprise me if one of the alphabet agencies already knows where it came from. Probably beyond the reach of law enforcement. I’ve seen unsurprising reports of Eastern European origins.
I don’t think Brandenburg fits. That was about political speech. These are disturbing messages sent directly to individuals in order to annoy or alarm. Pretty much the textbook definition of harassment. Certainly at least a misdemeanor
Whoever sent these has, at the least, some sort of database which includes names and phone numbers, and at least some level of information (albeit partially inaccurate) about race. Any such database would very likely include addresses, too. If I get a message from someone who knows my name, race, and address, threatening to kidnap me, that’s not free speech any more; that’s terrorist threats.
What crime is committed when you burn a cross in front of someone’s house? This feels similar.
Cross-burning is protected to some extent by the First Amendment.
Laws which make cross-burning an offence when done with the purpose to intimidate can be constitutional, provided the onus rests with the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an intention to intimidate; intimidation cannot be inferred: Virginia v Black.
A municipal law that made cross-burning an offence was struck down on 1st Amendment grounds in R.A.V. V St Paul. In that case a youth burned a cross on the lawn of a black family, but was acquitted when the municipal law was struck down.
It’s arguable that a more specifically drawn law could withstand scrutiny, in light of the Black case, but I’ve not found further cases on it.
What’s the line between political speech and annoying and alarming?
If the sender of the texts testifies that their political vision is that set out by the Supreme Court in Dredd Scott, that slavery is a good thing, as set out in the Cornerstone Speech, that the 13th Amendment should be repealed, and these texts were sent out to work towards that goal, is that not political speech ?
I’ve changed the thread title, which wasn’t very descriptive of the content.
If someone is posting to the internet about their beliefs that’s one thing. If I’m sending a text to Joe down the street I’m not making a political statement I am purposefully harassing Joe.
Any further news on this topic? I’d love to see some rich person hire a PI to investigate this thing, then expose the perps to the light of day.