Al Fargnoli retweetledi

So let me get this straight.
A woman uses a racial slur. A man follows her with a phone, asks her to say it again, films the whole thing, and then posts it. She is already walking away carrying her kid. No one gets hit. No one is threatened. The only thing that “escalates” is the view count.
And the great state of Minnesota decides this is a crime.
They dust off the “fighting words” doctrine ... a legal relic the Supreme Court has not actually upheld in eighty years ... and somehow apply it to a situation where the alleged victim is the one requesting the words on camera. Brilliant. Apparently the new test is not whether violence is likely. The new test is whether someone is willing to act offended hard enough to hit record.
Even better, the jury gets eleven full pages of instructions that somehow never mention the First Amendment. Not once. But they do get a thorough lecture on their own implicit biases. Priorities.
This is the part where we’re supposed to pretend the Constitution still has a limiting principle. That the government is only going after the truly dangerous speech. That this is narrow, careful, and totally not a template for the next person who says the wrong ugly thing in public.
Sure.
Once “I filmed him saying the bad word after I asked him to” becomes enough for a conviction, the law is no longer policing threats or violence. It is policing tone, taboo, and whoever happens to be most motivated to perform injury on camera.
You can hate the words. You can call her a bigot. You can share the video and pile on. All of that is free speech. Turning the same exchange into a criminal case is something else.
It is the state deciding that some offensive speech is now too expensive to allow. And it will not stop with this one.
(article below)
English




























