| “
|
Thus, the statute covers, among other things,
- Several blog posts using “offensively coarse
language” about a local politician, businessman, activist, professor,
and so on said with a “purpose to annoy” the subject or his friends.
- Several blog posts or alternative newspaper
articles using “offensively coarse language” about a race, religion, or
political movement said with a “purpose to annoy” members of
the group.
- Several facebook posts or chat room
messages using “offensively coarse language” to condemn an ex-lover who
has, say, cheated on the author (or otherwise allegedly mistreated the
author), said with a “purpose to annoy” the ex-lover.
- Several facebook posts using “offensively coarse
language” to condemn some service provider — lawyer, doctor, plumber,
or what have you — for that provider’s alleged mistreatment or poor
service, said with a “purpose to annoy” the service provider.
Eugene Volokh |
|
Well, that marks a lowering of The Bar. Used to be you'd have to actually achieve *offending* someone. Now all ya gotta do is intend to *annoy* 'em.
ReplyDeleteSpeech Control for Couch Potatoes.
*puzzled look*
e~C
[
Gee, that pretty well does me in. My purpose in life has been to annoy.
ReplyDeletemary
Where did you get a pic of bwarney's sphincter?
ReplyDeletePortions of a similar statute were recently struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as being unconstitutionally vague. I expect the same thing will happen in New Hampshire.
ReplyDelete"We find subsection (3) is unconstitutionally vague because the words "humiliate," "insult," and "scare" are not sufficiently definite to give reasonable notice of the prohibited conduct. This provision is subjective because the words that humiliate, insult, or scare one person may not have the same effect on another person. Therefore, people of common intelligence may be forced to guess at the provision's meaning and may differ as to its applicability. "
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26888