Trigger Warning: This post will make me a criminal in Rhode Island, if two things happen: First, two of you “pile on,” and second, if Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin gets his way.
That’s because Kilmartin is an asshole, and my saying so is insulting. Kilmartin, like others who believe that the internet must be cleansed of people who are hurtful, wants to make what I’ve just done (with the help of two of you) into a crime.
Social media posts, sexually explicit or otherwise, that cause someone’s online embarrassment or insult, would become crimes under a set of bills being advanced by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin.
The bill to prohibit so-called “revenge porn,” posting nude or sexually-explicit images of someone without their knowledge and consent, has become an annual goal for Kilmartin, who says Rhode Island is becoming an outlier in not having such laws on the books.
But another bill would target a wide range of social media activity that makes people “feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.”
Ah, yes, the dreaded feelz we hear so much about. As painful as a bullet to the head. More so, some say. And if a bullet to the head shouldn’t be a crime, what should?
Unlike current state “cyber-stalking” laws, which require police to prove a pattern of harassing behavior, someone could be prosecuted under the new Kilmartin bill for a single post if at least two others pile on with “separate non-continuous acts of unconsented contact” with the victim. The original post would have to be made with the intent to cause emotional distress and be expected to cause distress in a “reasonable person.”
At least, Kilmartin includes an intent requirement, which means he must be a Koch Brothers conservative Republican bent on protecting corporations from culpability. Except google says he’s a Democrat, although he’s also a retired police captain. Go figure.
But I do intend to cause Kilmartin emotional distress, because he’s an asshole. In fact, I hope this post causes him to feel a host of emotions, none good. Because he’s an asshole. And I hope that at least two of your will pile on. You know why.
“In the new age of the Internet and social media, once a harassing statement, image or video is posted online it can be there forever,” Kilmartin said. “In addition, others persons may respond to or repost the harassing statement, image or video, which would continue to harass and seriously harm the victim. Unfortunately, the current law provides no protection to victims of this type of harassment as such behavior is not be considered a ‘course of conduct.'”
There are, no doubt, a great many scenarios where we would want a way in which to protect people who are harmed by vicious online attacks, by “revenge porn” in its most offensive sense. It’s not that the internet can’t be a cesspool of outrageous and offensive speech. But there is a problem, and this push by Kilmartin reflects the problem in its most virulent form.
This is where social justice warriors will laugh and say, “he’s just going to toss out the old trope of the First Amendment again, as if that protects hate speech.” Because what’s a constitutional right when there are hurt feelings at stake?
But this isn’t just the free speech retort, not that a constitutional right becomes trite because some blockheads have decided they don’t like it very much and are therefore entitled to trivialize it. This is about government directly, explicitly, intentionally criminalizing speech because someone doesn’t like it.
Speech can inflict pain, though not quite the way a bullet to the head does. And it’s meant to when the speech is critical. But the First Amendment protects critical speech. It protects harsh speech. It protects speech that entails calling an asshole like Kilmartin an asshole, and it’s meant to do so. That’s what it’s all about.
Proponents of feelz laws will offer their stories of heartbreak and sadness, and the anecdotes will indeed to heartbreaking and sad. And like Kilmartin, they want a means to address the problems. Whether that means create a crime is another matter. Clearly, that’s Kilmartin’s solution. More crimes! That will fix everything. But then, Kilmartin is the attorney general, and so crimes are the nail to his hammer.
But this feelz law, like the misbegotten revenge porn laws, can’t be crafted to limit its reach to those who commit the conduct that gives rise to the sad anecdotes. These laws are so wildly vague and overbroad that they would criminalize pretty much anything that didn’t limit itself to “you’re awesome” and “Oh, yes, you’re so right!!! *hugs*”. With, of course, the proviso that two other people on the internet expressed agreement. Because that would be “piling on.”
There is a war going on in this nation over speech and criminalization. I’ve been harping on it for quite a while now, and yet the tide continues to flow of laws seeking to silence speech that doesn’t comport with the forces of feelz, and to not merely silence, but criminalize, unpleasant speech. Many of you have gotten bored with the subject, and let me know. Some explain, “but it hurts my feelings,” and consider me devoid of empathy. I just don’t get it.
If the Kilmartins, the Mary Anne Franks, the Danielle Citrons, the SJWs of the world get their way, and as irrational and ignorant as it may seem to those who respect the Constitution, that document written by hateful slave owners and rapist misogynists, which some of us “fetishize” as having meaning that can’t be reinterpreted on an hourly basis, this country and its internet will become very quiet.
And if that’s not clear enough, bear in mind that police officers have feelings too, and you would commit a crime by hurting their feelz by speaking ill of their putting a bullet in an innocent guy’s head. And maybe, three years after you’re arrested and held in lieu of bail, that newsworthiness exception might kick in. Or not.
So, Attorney General Kilmartin, come get me. I confess. I did it, and I intended to do it. Because you’re an asshole, and someone has to tell you, even if it hurts your feelings.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He’s not an asshole, he’s the dingleberry that hangs around the asshole.
And yes, I intended to hurt his feelings too….because the freedom of speech does not equate to the freedom from being offended.
You’ve hurt my feelings by not agreeing with me that he’s an asshole. If only there was a law…
Just remember why dingeberry’s are brown.
Because that’s the way shit is.
I wonder if this offends someone somewhere.
Oh! I get co-defendant on this one!
Kilmartin’s an asshole for being an asshole.
Talking about feelz and assholes is making me all tingly…more feelz…
Rhode Island is a “democratic” state. Ha. We cannot get a handle on the “Ocean State”. It, along with CONnecticut, are drive-thru states on the way to Nu Yawk, which incidentally went for Hillary in the primary. Go figure?!? The whole Northeast is rapidly becoming a Bermuda Triangle of the Legal Mind. We think it started in CT, near where Lyme Disease was first discovered. We believe there is a connection, or “causality” if you prefer!
Well then, let me to be the first one to pile on.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin is an asshole.
So now there are piles on the asshole that is Kilmartin.
I’ll be direct.
Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin, you are an asshole. I hope you cry when you read this, because it is written with the intent to cause you emotional distress. Cry, asshole, cry.
Asshole.
He is a scurrilous, unwashed, unusually odiferous, asshole, currently engaged in its designed purpose of spewing out shit.
Yes, SHG, Peter Kilmartin is being an asshole, and one could certainly argue that only a dickhead like Peter Kilmartin would put in that much effort just to be a round pink puckered thing.
But, speaking as one avowed asshole to another, maybe he puts in all the effort because assholery doesn’t come as easy to him as it does to thee and me.
Maybe he feels conspicuous because his hemorrhoids are too small. Or maybe it’s something on the other side that’s too small. Whatever the reason for his inadequacy, he is trying to shut down assholes like you and me by criminalizing our expression of contempt. Sure, this makes him as big an asshole as the one that ate Cleveland, but it’s far worse than that.
This is an attorney general we’re talking about. Someone with the power to decide who to charge and who not to charge. And he’s just admitted that he’s biased against people who use bad words and strong language. The putz needs to be taken out back and shot because he’s too emotional, weak, and stupid to live in modern society.
I’ll get the wood chipper.
No need for metaphorical violence. Just a stern talking-to, and perhaps a furrowed brow. Children hate it when you do give them a stern talking-to and a furrowed brow.
“Metaphorical” violence??!?
How dare you imply that my words about being shot and put through the wood chipper aren’t real violence?
Hell, even Kilmartin knows better, and his brains have been distributed with the rest of the mulch over 5 acres.
Bear in mind that I trash comments that suggest violence because *I* am against it and will not have my blawg used to suggest that violence is ever an answer, whether seriously or otherwise. So, still have an issue with metaphorical? If so, I can fix the problem.
Well, that was supposed to be tongue firmly in cheek, but your requirements have been noted for future comments — I never doubt your seriousness when it comes to violently trashing comments.
I understand that it was tongue in cheek, but you have no idea how many serious comments I get, and trash, a day urging that the cure to a particular problem comes at the end of a gun. I’m very sensitive about it, even as a joke. Remember, there’s no sanity test before they sell someone a keyboard.
All space where his brains should be. Maybe he’s sitting on them.
Peter F. Kilmartin is an empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in his general direction! His mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries!
I wonder if he even gets Monty Python?
“Many of you have gotten bored with the subject, and let me know.”
Nope. As Arlo said:
“If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
I’ve been singing this song now for twenty five minutes. I could sing it
for another twenty five minutes. I’m not proud… or tired.”
Kilmartin is an asshole.
The day may come when people ask, “how the hell did we end up criminalizing free speech?” At least I can say it wasn’t for my lack of trying. I just keep strumming.
If SHG is a criminal, then I don’t wan t to be an honest citizen. Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin is an asshole (and a disgrace to his office).
Obligatory?
(apologies for “link policy violation”)
“Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac … It’s in the hole! It’s in the hole! It’s in the hole!”…and Kilmartin is an asshole because I stand with SHG.
If i just say he is a “cretin” does it count?
I’m going to pile on and call him a dummy.
But I’m only doing that because I want you to go to jail for it.
Felony or misdemeanor. If the former, you’ll have to do better than dummy.
Everyone knows that all revenge porn is made and distributed by the Koch brothers.
So, are the people who “pile on” liable as co-conspirators? If someone makes a mean post, and only one person piles on, can the original poster be charged with attempted hurt feelz by taking a substantial step towards causing illegal hurt feelz? So many questions unanswered.
Well, surely it’s a conspiracy at minimum.
But does that really go far enough? If Kilmartin really wants to show he means business, he needs to convince congress to make this law a predicate act under RICO. Codify the law as 18 USC 1585a to show we mean business
18 USC 1585: Seizure, detention, transportation or sale of slaves
18 USC 1585a: Being a meanie on the Internet.
18 USC 1586: Service on vessels I’m slave trade.
And when Feinstein proposed that law, I’m blaming you for giving her the idea.
Asshole
The law would require the post “be expected to cause distress in a ‘reasonable person.'”, but clearly Kilmartin is not a reasonable person, but rather a ridiculous asshole.
So, suppose three of us heap verbal internet shit on a convicted child molester (or any accused or convicted criminal). I know you lawyers love hypotheticals.
Maybe anyone who reads 3 insulting posts can also be convicted, under the theory the wronged person is injured every time someone knowingly reads the posts.
Then the bill should at least provide for an affirmative defense along the lines of 18 USC 2252(c). That way, the next time I’m suckered into reading another of Scott’s unfashionably blunt posts, as long as I call Kilmartin’s office before I get to the third comment in agreement, I should still be OK.
…All pile on the rabbit…
I’d say yeah, Kilmartin’s an asshole, but I wouldn’t want to hurt the orifice’s feelz, ya know?
Good point. Assholes everywhere are offended by the comparison.
I hope Kilmartin wakes up everyday contemplating only what a waste of space and air he is. I hope his last thought at night is “I can’t actually be this worthless, can I?” I hope he realizes that all his coworkers hate him, that his wife married him only out of pity, that his children are ashamed of him, and that his garbageman feels sorry that the trash he picks up once had to share a space with Kilmartin.
Most especially, I hope this comment and the post to which it is attached make him “feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.” Ideally, all six. Because RI Attorney General Peter Kilmartin is a thuggish, petty, half-witted, sorry excuse for a human being. And is another word, which I don’t use.
A Denis Leary song comes to mind.
Was Kilmartin born an asshole or did he have to work at it?
And we’d stand a better chance of getting arrested if we sent him email.
In my defense, I twitted this post to him. That should count for something.
I seem to recall that the dynamic duo’s roadtrip in Dumb and Dumber started in Rhode Island. Maybe the sequel will have a threesome. Casting already complete.
What happens when a non reasonable person gets offended, and claims discrimination?
Or how about a non reasonable person who self-identifies as reasonable?
This is very reasonablist of you.
How does the asshole in Rhode Island gain jurisdiction over the entire internet? Or, for a more specific example, over SHG in New York?
Assholes don’t worry about extra-territorial jurisdiction. They rule the world.
Kilmartin is a public figure, and political speech is the most protected of all forms of speech, so call him what you want and act like you’re celebrating the 4th of July. But plenty of ordinary folks are the recipient of Internet hate speech that does real damage to them. Any ideas, genius, about how to deal with that issue?. Or is just a whole lot easier and more fun to take on the obvious buffoons?
That Kilmartin is a public figure, aside from being obvious, has nothing to do with the issue in the post. Don’t feel bad. A lot of people are blithering idiots about law. You’re hardly alone. As for what to do for “ordinary folks” about the “real damage” of hate speech, they should all go to your tiny studio apartment and play with your cats.
Steve: What a well-reasoned response. Of course there’s no difference between heaping abuse on a public figure and heaping abuse on, say, a suicidal, bullied teen. You reason only in absolutes–either we tolerate ‘hate speech’ or we’re fascists. Kilmartin’s proposed law comes short of the mark, but it represents an attempt to draw a line somewhere to protect vulnerable persons from cyber-lynching. Thank God you’re not actually in charge of making any distinctions that have impact on real persons.
Steve? Blew that one too? And again, no reply button. Is there no bottom to your stupid? Yep, it’s very hard to have both constitutional rights and mindless emotions. I reason. You feel. One of us reflects logic. The other feels that society should be ruled by his emotions. Whenever something makes him sad, it should be a crime. Got it, genius.
Now we’re done. Dealing with the inane gibberish of deeply passionate assholes isn’t nearly as much fun for me as it is for you. Bye.
When it’s too hot, you quit? Your post exemplifies emotions run amok. Logic? I don’t see any here. If you want logic, take a look at “reductio ad absurdum”–a logical fallacy that you employ liberally here and elsewhere (“the other feels that society should be ruled by his emotions. Whenever something makes him sad, it should be a crime”). Try to find that in my earlier posts. Dishonest and cowardly.
You’re laboring under the mistaken belief that you’ve said something worthy of more of my time. You haven’t. And when you start out behaving like an asshole (“genius?”) and offer nothing of substance, then you magically go away.
Scott, I’m sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you a ‘genius.’ I thought you could handle some of the same that you liberally dispense.
Underlying your argument is the idea that a citizen’s feelings and dignity are somehow divorced from law. As though constitutional protections have no relevance to real people–they exist, in your mind, as abstractions, that have no relationship to emotional harms. As though that kind of harm is somehow less real than physical harm.
I don’t get it. I assume you have enough experience to know that emotions play a key concept in criminal law (NGRI; EED; justification) and in civil law (IIED; defamation, etc.).
Get some therapy, man. It’s OK to feel.
You didn’t hurt my feelings. You marked yourself as an asshole. It’s entirely different. Don’t project your grasp of reality onto me.
Hurt feelings are not the same as bullet in your head. There’s no definition of hate speech, no less a way to protect free speech while criminalizing the exact same words when some fragile teacup is hurt by them. It’s not that I promote mean or nasty speech, but that it’s not possible to have both criminalized hate speech and protect free speech I note that you’ve offered no way in which both could be accomplished. No one has because it cant be done. Those of you on the emotional side are willing to sacrifice free speech in the name of ending the hate speech. Between the two, I value the constitutional right of free speech over the feelings of the unduly sensitive.
And insanity isn’t feelings. Mental illness is a disease.
“either we tolerate ‘hate speech’ or we’re fascists.”
Either we have constitutional rights or we have your sad feelz. Dumbass.
It’s impossible to engage with the hyperbolic gibberish of feelz. More to the point, they can’t see logic through their tears. And yes, he’s a fascist, but too stupid to grasp why his good intentions make him one.
Steve,
Let’s take a look at what Kilmartin wants to criminalize (“a wide range of social media activity that makes people “feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested) with some existing NY law:
————————–
§ 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death;
S 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
S 240.31 Aggravated harassment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of a belief or perception regarding such person`s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:
1. Damages premises primarily used for religious purposes, or acquired pursuant to section six of the religious corporation law and maintained for purposes of religious instruction, and the damage to the premises exceeds fifty dollars; or
2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree in the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 of this article and has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree for the commission of conduct proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 or he has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the first degree within the preceding ten years.
3. Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places a swastika, commonly exhibited as the emblem of Nazi Germany, on any building or other real property, public or private, owned by any person, firm or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without express permission of the owner or operator of such building or real property;
4. Sets on fire a cross in public view; or
5. Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places or displays a noose, commonly exhibited as a symbol of racism and intimidation, on any building or other real property, public or private, owned by any person, firm or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without express permission of the owner or operator of such building or real property.
——————-
It’s not a huge leap (or no leap in some instances) from Kilmartin’s proposal to these laws. Are you opposed to these existing laws, should we get rid of them? Notice that even ‘annoying’ conduct can be criminal. That can’t be right, can it?
Speech v. conduct. It’s not hard, like not getting my name wrong or using the reply button or not thinking this is your bandwidth to waste on this idiocy. Although, the harassment statutes (that “annoy” part you like) are unconstitutional.
Why no. It’s not. Do your research. Have you made enough of a fool out of yourself yet?
Pingback: When Is Enough Enough? Finality v. Legitimacy | Simple Justice
So you’ve chosen not to post my last two replies. It’s your blog and you’ll run it as you choose, but please go easy on this kind of sanctimonious shit:
“And before some snarky dumbass raises the obvious, no, that doesn’t mean that anyone, myself included, has to respond to comments “respectfully,” or accept that any disagreeable comment isn’t stupid and wrong. You write comments. I tell you you’re a moron. But your comment is posted, and if anyone thinks you’re right and I’m wrong, at least the difference is aired. That’s the best you’re going to get, and the best to which you’re entitled. A chance to have a view that disagrees with mine see the light of day.”
Sadly, I kind of liked your blog, but see that you can’t take what you give out.
Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you’re not the center of my universe. You don’t get to use my soapbox to spread your brilliance comment after comment. You don’t get to demand my time and attention comment after comment because you’re feelings are so important. I’ve already given you a ton of space here and attention, but like every child, you want more because you’re the center of your universe. But not mine.
There’s a reason you come here to talk to grownups, while no one comes to you or even gives a shit that you exist. And when you stop coming here, no one will care. No one will even notice you’re gone, because you don’t matter to anyone but yourself. Bye.
At least Joey did not pull the Carl David Ceder routine: Make sure you bring enough first-aid kits.
We wonder how Mr. Ceder would make out in R.I.? Ceder harasses SHG over the internet and winds up in prison. No, these proposed laws would never fly in Texas.
How many times have we been through this, Bill. Even you’re bored with it. Imagine how I feel every time some day tripper pulls out the third grade playbook?
While I, too, fart in the general direction of the Rhode Island atty general, and do so with the intent to cause him great distress, I fear that he will have to come here to get me. I have no business in his state beyond the emission of noxious gases.
Just for information, where I went to law school the First Amendment class was a second or third year elective. That means that the R.I. atty general may not have been exposed to it.
Pingback: When “Intent” Was Written Out Of The Model Penal Code | Simple Justice