"Even where emotional distress is reasonably expected to result, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from punishing political speech intended to harass or intimidate in the broad senses of those words. The Free Speech Clause protects a variety of speech that is intended to trouble or annoy, or to make another timid or fearful. In Snyder v. Phelps , 562 U.S. 443, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011), for example, the Supreme Court held that protestors at a serviceman's funeral had the right to display signs that read, d. at 448, 461, 131 S.Ct. 1207. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul , 505 U.S. 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992), the Court declared unconstitutional a criminal ordinance that prohibited the display of burning crosses, Nazi swastikas, and other symbols that the perpetrator had reasonable grounds to know would arouse ""anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."" Id. at 380, 391, 112 S.Ct. 2538. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell , 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988), held that the First Amendment protected a parody that depicted a prominent minister having drunken sex with his mother. Id . at 47-48, 50, 108 S.Ct. 876 ; see also Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist. , 240 F.3d 200, 204 (3d Cir. 2001) (Alito, J.) (""There is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First Amendment's free speech clause.""). For this reason, the cyberstalking statute cannot be applied" """Thank God for Dead Soldiers,""" ""God Hates Fags,"" and ""You're Going to Hell."" I"
"Even where emotional distress is reasonably expected to result, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from punishing political speech intended to harass or intimidate in the broad senses of those words. The Free Speech Clause protects a variety of speech that is intended to trouble or annoy, or to make another timid or fearful. In Snyder v. Phelps , 562 U.S. 443, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011), for example, the Supreme Court held that protestors at a serviceman's funeral had the right to display signs that read, d. at 448, 461, 131 S.Ct. 1207. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul , 505 U.S. 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992), the Court declared unconstitutional a criminal ordinance that prohibited the display of burning crosses, Nazi swastikas, and other symbols that the perpetrator had reasonable grounds to know would arouse ""anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."" Id. at 380, 391, 112 S.Ct. 2538. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell , 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988), held that the First Amendment protected a parody that depicted a prominent minister having drunken sex with his mother. Id . at 47-48, 50, 108 S.Ct. 876 ; see also Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist. , 240 F.3d 200, 204 (3d Cir. 2001) (Alito, J.) (""There is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First Amendment's free speech clause.""). For this reason, the cyberstalking statute cannot be applied" """Thank God for Dead Soldiers,""" ""God Hates Fags,"" and ""You're Going to Hell."" I"
Thanks for covering my story.