It’s a BEAUTIFUL sunny Saturday in AZ…85 degrees and not a cloud in the sky. People are golfing in Scottsdale. Football fans are psyched for a Superbowl in my home town(ish). Aurora is basking in the sun.
It’s too nice to spend the day inside writing, so I will keep this very short.
Re: this comment —
Thanks Nessarose – she has seen it. I’ve seen it. And I look forward to responding to it on her behalf in due course.
That’s it. That’s the only response you’ll get…except for three small comments:
1.) I said before I’m not going to argue this stuff online. That statement remains true. Don’t look for any explainer posts/videos. They’re not happening. My arguments will be made in court, not social media.
2.) I’m aware R.A. claims Laura “misrepresented” things he said, and he says she accused him of making statements that don’t appear in the source videos. I’m informed there is ONE example of a transcript not containing a statement Laura claimed was made in a video (or vice versa).
Before you yell FRAUD! this was apparently a simple clerical error — the alleged statement WAS made, but in a different video than the one cited (copies of all videos have been preserved, so this really is a non-issue). That will all be cleared up later.
3.) While I won’t litigate the merits of this case online, it’s worth mentioning something important – just because you CAN engage in online speech does NOT mean you can do so without any consequences.
As most people know, I’ve spent decades defending the First Amendment. I hold that right to be among the most sacred we have in this country. That’s why I have frequently fought to defend the rights of even those I disagree with.
The First Amendment is at the top of the Bill of Rights because it is, literally, the #1 most important freedom we have. I believe that as deeply as I can express.
But the right to speak is NOT unlimited. Sorry, it’s just not.
People who push the limits too far can face serious consequences for their action, especially when they intentionally/malicious hurt others. This can include criminal prosecution and conviction. It can include prison.
Don’t take my word for it. Here’s a VERY recent and helpful case that explains the rules in this context (and NOTE – Arizona law is much tougher than most states in this area, especially when it comes to what qualifies as criminal harassment): State v. Snyder, 2024 WL 342301, *5 (Ariz.App. 2024) (affirming criminal conviction based on social media posts about the victim, rejecting defendant’s First Amendment argument, and explaining, “harassment is not protected speech….”)
Ugh. I said I would keep this short, then my ADHD just got away from me….FML.
Until then – enjoy the game. Enjoy the weather. And be nice to each other.
state v. snyder