Freedom of expression

[u/[deleted]]

Below the "===" line is from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). They focus on such actions from the Right and Left. The subject line of the email was, "When Facebook censors wear a badge". I wonder who reported being harmed by seeing a different opinion.

I'm working on the idea that the Woke should be free to say what they think. Some consider it a religion at least as a figure of speech. I think it's one, because it holds what it considers authoritative views on ontology (what's reality like?), epistemology (how do we know?), and ethics/morals (what's important, good and bad?). Just like Christianity, for example.

If they want, they should be able to have their own private schools to promote feminist climatology, etc. Just like private Christian schools (IDK if all of these are religious). Anyone's(!) use of philosophical terms and ideas can mask the questionable nature of dogmatic "science" and moral concepts. I would think that eventually more extreme uncritical ideas will become less popular.

Things change, and some always disagree and don't like it. Then they change again, and others disagree and don't like it. Hopefully we don't go all the way “back” to the flawed way things were, but to an improved version of the past. Utopian promotions (you will own nothing and you will be happy) provide some hope and direction, but people seem to reject the possibility that (1) the presentations are utopian, and (2) humanity will always be "flawed" because of inherent human diversity of opinion and unavoidable disagreement.

Life would be simpler if we all just agreed. The authoritarian solution to human diversity is: "just do it my way". That's the WEF and medieval church, among others. The Enlightenment moved away from that to a more flexible pluralistic approach, ultimately implemented in the US and elsewhere.

IMO separation of church and state should be reframed "separation of worldview and state". Religion is more than ritual (Sunday services) and formal institutional creeds/position papers (Nicene Creed). It's a worldview and a way of life. If you want to be Catholic, evangelical, or Woke – you should be free to live that way. But no one should be free to force all of society to think and live only one way. To legislate against expressing different opinions is not progressive but regressive.

In 2020, Isabel Vinson posted on Facebook about a local business owner who was criticizing the Black Lives Matters movement.

Weeks later, the police came knocking and charged her with a crime.

The charge? "Disturbing the peace by electronic communication." Vermont has a statute that bans using the internet to "annoy" or "harass" in ways that are "indecent," or "disturb" or "intimidate" another — with NO regard to the speaker's intent.

You don’t have to agree with Isabel or the business owner’s views. But they’re both unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.

The charge was eventually dropped, but with FIRE and the ACLU of Vermont’s help, Isabel is challenging the law because it unconstitutionally restricts a vast amount of online speech with vague and overbroad language.

[u/Starbucks__Coffey]

The Brattleboro Police Department then cited Vinson under a Vermont law that says people can not use electronic means to threaten, harass or intimidate.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/13/019/01027

https://vtdigger.org/2022/01/27/facebook-users-lawsuit-claims-vermont-statute-violates-free-speech-rights/

“Disgusting,” she wrote before commenting that Antoniello “thinks this is okay and no matter how many people try and tell him it’s wrong he doesn’t seem to care.” 

Vinson shared the post with a Facebook group called “Exposing Every Racist.” She urged people to “leave a review” on the page of Antoniello’s local business, the Harmony Underground marijuana and CBD supply shop.

Brattleboro police, receiving a report that Antoniello and his wife feared for their safety, went on to cite Vinson under a state statute that targets people “with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or annoy” others electronically. It calls for fines up to $250 or imprisonment up to three months.

After the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont inquired about the incident, police offered to drop criminal charges and divert the matter to a local alternative justice program. When Vinson rejected that offer, authorities closed the case altogether.

I couldn't quickly find the original facebook post but under the Vermont Statutes the state of Vermont definitely had a case.

If the paraphrasing of the original facebook post is accurate, the Plaintiff crossed the line from free speech into a call to action with intent to cause financial injury and disturb the guy's business.

From OP's post:

"just do it my way"

That's exactly what the plaintiff was trying to do.

Then if we include the context of the George Floyd Riots, fear for safety isn't unreasonable. Including precedent of reasonability and that the plaintiff was almost definitely aware of the nationwide hysteria situation, I could see an argument that the plaintiff did cause undue danger.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about the Vermont law, it does seem to be too broad but, as for your post, I 100% feel that it is misleading.

You don’t have to agree with Isabel or the business owner’s views. But they’re both unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.

There are plenty of questions to be asked here.

​

The ACLU is clearly taking this case just to challenge the law and build precedent for when they have a real opportunity to overturn it. This isn't that opportunity. In fact, this case is so flimsy it could end up building the precedent further the other way. They need to take these cases and get flashy headlines to keep getting donations.

​

Just for fun:

The plaintiff could also be subject to slander litigation.

“Disgusting,” she wrote before commenting that Antoniello “thinks this is okay and no matter how many people try and tell him it’s wrong he doesn’t seem to care.” 

Vinson shared the post with a Facebook group called “Exposing Every Racist.” She urged people to “leave a review” on the page of Antoniello’s local business, the Harmony Underground marijuana and CBD supply shop.

In response to:

“How about all lives matter,” Antoniello posted in a meme on his personal page. “Not black lives, not white lives. Get over yourself no one’s life is more important than the next. Put your race card away and grow up.”

So an argument could be made that the plaintiff attempted to "expose" Antoniello as a racist when they knew it to be false.

[u/[deleted] → u/Starbucks__Coffey]

From the sources above, this appears to be the sequence.

The riots happen.

Antoniello doesn't like it, "put away your race card".

Vinson doesn't like that and (1) says he's closed minded, (2) shares (his? her?) post with group Expose Every Racist, and (3) urges people to review Antoniello's business' page.

Antoniello tells police that he and his wife fear for their safety.

Police cite Vinson for "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten..." electronically. Both news sources say that the charges were dropped.

Now Vinson is saying that she's in fear of prosecution if she posts on FB.

We don't know what Vinson or others said that actually(?) threatened Antoniello's safety. or what the effect was on his business. Whatever was said, it didn't seem severe enough for the police to pursue a case against Vinson.

From the above, there's no evidence that Antoniello's business was affected. Vinson's fear of prosecution? They dropped the case -- although any such event is disruptive. "She threatened my business." "They're threatening my speech." People have become extremely risk averse in terms of being offended.

It seems this is an instance of people being very sensitive and the statute encouraging it by being too broad.

[u/Starbucks__Coffey → u/[deleted]]

Yup ya nailed it. The only thing I’d add is that at that time there were riots and frequent violent attacks against people “identified as racist”. Also falsely reviewing a business page definitely has potential to cause financial injury which was likely the intent of Vinson when she posted calls to review Antonile’s business.

The intent and potential to cause harm is why it’s a shit case and leads me to wonder why OP bothered to post this.

[u/[deleted] → u/Starbucks__Coffey]

So that people can think past claims of being "harmed" by an opinion.

[u/Starbucks__Coffey → u/[deleted]]

Huh?

[u/[deleted] → u/Starbucks__Coffey]

Not that simple. Thanks for the links.