• ParkingPsychology@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you read it, it becomes clear that the issue is that Colorado wrote a stalking law that is in conflict with the first amendment. Something that can easily be corrected going forward, if it hasn’t been corrected already.

    So he was convicted in Colorado, but the proof for that conviction was not good enough for a federal court.

    • dreadgoat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lots of comments here not understanding the role of the Supreme Court.

      The stalker was not being judged here, the state that convicted him was, and they failed the test. The Court’s decisions is that the law Colorado wrote, as written, could too easily be used to stifle free speech, as just about any “misunderstanding” could then be classified as a threat if the state court decides so. Ergo, anyone prosecuted under said law potentially had their rights violated, so there is no reasonable recourse but to forgive them. They could be re-tried for their crimes, but we also have laws against Double Jeopardy, so if the state already played all their cards then basically they fucked up and a potentially dangerous man will go free due to the state’s incompetence.