you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

Yeah I always view it as the rights of an individual end where anothers rights begin. Someone who reasonably has to fear for their health and safety do to your words/actions is having their rights trampled. It just gets dicey because people conflate hurt feelings with reasonable means.

If Terry says he really wishes someone put (insert politician name here) through a woodchipper. Terry is venting and people wouldn't without a reasonable doubt believe Terry was going to do that. Now if Terry rents a woodchipper and truck to pull it the next day and starts driving to the city/state where that politician lives... A jury of Terry's peers may suddenly believe they meant to do such themselves, especially since they didn't have any contracts to mulch trees or property they owned in that area.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago*

    The reasonable person standard is important here. For example, a reasonable person would not interpret a picture of some shells on the beach on Instagram to be an actual threat against a politician.

    This is different from reasonable doubt which is a standard of proof required to reach a criminal conviction.

    From the second link:

    It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases.

  • source
  • parent