• perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    That seems like a dangerous precedent? Like if someone at trial had a protective order not to go beat the cr*p out of a witness… They could simply appeal the order, do the deed, and then once the order is reinstated it’s now moot because they’ve already done it?!

    • Echinoderm@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s not comparing the same thing. Beating the crap out of someone is inherently illegal, free speech is not.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        True, but in this case his free speech is known to have inflamed his cult followers to commit acts of violence in his name, so it’s a closer comparison than it appears on the surface. Court personnel are already receiving death threats.

        • Echinoderm@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh, he absolutely should be told to shut his mouth.

          The point is the courts have to be a lot more careful about circumscribing a right that has quite strong existing protections versus something that does not.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Slander and libel are inherently illegal, being confidently wrong on the internet is not. Lucky you.