Florida Legislator Thinks First Amendment Should Be Trimmed Back A Bit To Deal With Social Media Threats
from the not-loopholes-but-protections dept
A reaction to the (non-physical) "explosion of social media in our society" has prompted an Florida legislator to make a questionable law even worse. Florida already has a law on the books making it a second-degree felony to threaten to kill or harm someone via electronic communications.
That's apparently not good enough for state Rep. Stan McClain (whose "explosion" statement is quoted above). He has introduced an amendment to the law that would eliminate the language requiring targeted communications.
McClain’s bill would outlaw “written threats to kill or do bodily injury to another person that are publicly posted online, even if not specifically sent to or received by the person who is the subject of the threat...”
You can see immediately where the problem lies: this bill has the potential to criminalize protected speech, not to mention cause harm to people who express themselves terribly and in an unfocused manner. State Rep. Julio Gonzalez argued the bill would criminalize stupidity -- a tempting prospect to be sure, but all but guaranteed to result in First Amendment violations.
McClain wants to fix what he views as a loophole in the state's existing online threats law.
[A] recent state appellate decision highlighted the problem of prosecuting such cases when threats are posted on social media, as opposed to being sent by email, and are not necessarily aimed at one person.
“A juvenile’s conviction … was overturned, although the juvenile had posted multiple threats of school violence on Twitter, because the threats were not directly sent to or received by any of the threatened students or school officials,” a staff analysis explained.
This isn't a bug. It's a feature. Online speech should be difficult to prosecute, just like offline speech is. There's a fine line to be tread when prosecuting apparent threats. Rewording the state law this way will only lead to state-ordained punishment of protected speech.
McClain is still trying to fine tune his bill, but it has already been passed out of committee and is the on the road to becoming viable legislation. The language treats any threat that can be viewed by anyone else as a criminal act, even if viewers aren't targeted. McClain says the targeted criminal activity is the posting of threatening messages. He claims prosecutors won't stack charges based on how many times the untargeted threat was viewed. That's nice of him to say before the fact, but the reality is Florida residents won't know how the law will be enforced until someone starts enforcing it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: first amendment, florida, free speech, stan mcclain
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Couple of questions about the law
"Next time I see you, Tim, I'm going to kill you."
First off, this is a statement you can hear in a million different places and it has completely different meanings and connotations:
Place #1: Facebook - In context, angry dude who is known to be unstable. Ok, totally prosecutable and fine, but I'd argue this could already be prosecutable; no changes needed.
Place #2: Facebook - In context, sister comes home and posts a picture of her destroyed room. No history of physical abuse (other than typical sibling stuff). - You want to prosecute this???
Place #3: Any video game ever - So I post that in Overwatch to a player on the other side. Discussing the fact that I will murder his face off the minute I see him... in game. -- You want to prosecute this???
Place #4: Posting on a site like this to make a point. - Well, it is specific (to Tim) and it is a threat, even though context (this post) obviously makes it benign and harmless. - You want to prosecute this???
This is why you need to narrowly tailor speech. Otherwise you make many people criminals for benign comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couple of questions about the law
ha ha ha... contradiction much? narrowly tailoring it IS what creates the criminals out of benign comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
But I guess I was talking about it in the rule-of-unintended-consequences direction, not 'narrowly tailoring' to create criminals because arrests=justifying my existence. But yes, I totally get where you are going with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
yes indeed, anyone that feels that justice is incomplete are people seeking revenge instead of actual justice.
Therefore Justice is a righteous ideal, that can never be achieved by corrupt humans, we can only come close. Even the Justice system makes a mockery of itself regularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
"This is why you need to narrowly tailor restrictions on speech."
Or at least something along those lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
Narrow or not their proposal is not constitutional, even though this legislature is not Congress, and nothing they can do will make it narrow enough to not violate this countries operating instructions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
What is one or one million more?
And no, I am not being sarcastic, I am very serious here. I have yet to meet a single person when tested ever pass a constitutional understanding test. Everyone supports at least multiple laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.
Most people have not even read the US Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
Why should anyone have to pass a test for .... ummm what? What are you attempting to say here, guess I missed the point or something.
Also, when you include everyone or everything in a blanket statement about everything, you are most likely incorrect as a result of including everyone and everything in your statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
"Everyone I have Met" supports at least multiple laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.
For example the easiest two are..
Can Citizens own fully automatic firearms? This is a guaranteed right in the constitution yet most would not agree.
Can people working for the government or military legally give classified information to the press with fear of prosecution? They sure can but many would not agree.
Can a Judge constitutionally issue a gag order? Never, yet many would agree they can and they happen all the time.
Those are just the low hanging fruit too!
This does not even get into the multitudes of folks that seek to create "thought crime" laws, and the many folks that watch the news and work for law enforcement that work off the "guilty until proven innocent" rule set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
How 'bout an rpg? Grenades?
I think it would be totally cool to have a rail gun - fer sure! If I make one, is that illegal?
Is there a line somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
Except for the anarchists, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
In my opinion anarchists are only that way because they disagree with the current law, they are no different than republicans or democrats when it comes to their blind dogma's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
https://imgur.com/gallery/NIqQB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
I think somewhere along the way the internets have misunderstood my intentions with that comment....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
Fair enough, but if that was easy to misunderstand, how much easier will it be to misunderstand a narrowly defined speech law when a politician and his buddy, prosecutors, cops and judges jobs might depend on it. I think it is safe to say, it is better for people to just be emotionally butt hurt over things people say rather than someone to get physically butt hurt in jail because they said something someone did not like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Couple of questions about the law
In order for a person to be able to run afoul of this law, what is going to be the benchmark for action?
When a person either directly or indirectly "feels" threatened? What if the police want to "feel" threatened on other's behalf?
Will it be using the word Kill period or some other specific word or phrase?
What about jokes? Those off limits now too? or how about parody or how about just plain old satire?
The only result speech laws will have is the opposite of the intended. It's not even a real secret, there is a long, ridiculously long human history lesson for humanity on how much people want to silence words they don't like.
You say something I don't like I now have the right to cause physical violence... it is just that simple and laws about speech is just that. The police having authority to cause violence upon your person for offending any speech law, real or imagined.
I don't know about you, but I have "ZERO" confidence in my fellow humans coming to my aid if I were ever falsely accused. I will have more than enough accepting that I am automatically guilty upon being charged though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this bill has the potential to ... cause harm to people who express themselves terribly and in an unfocused manner.
Perfect. Pass it and use it to prosecute Orange Turd in Chief!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if this passes, the next time Trump goes to Florida...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So if this passes, the next time Trump goes to Florida...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So if this passes, the next time Trump goes to Florida...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Billy Shakespeare is in deep shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Going to Get You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Rep. Julio Gonzalez argued the bill would criminalize stupidity...
And, by extension, Florida itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would this make it illegal for a company to threaten to send someone to Boot Hill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm, maybe I am stupid, but isn't this already against the law? If you do this, will this not at least get you investigated to see if you are actually serious about it?
If it isn't against the law and is protected speech (which I doubt) it should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Florida!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is Florida!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Florida Legislator Thinks..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]