If conservative lawyers argue with a straight face that the right to have an abortion does not include an obligation by the government to provide such care, it’s because they are legally correct.

Terroristic threat statutes are pretty dubious constitutionally, but in general they require a threat of imminent bodily harm to a specific person (as the Colorado “Menacing” statute does). So generally calling for genocide (as it appears this case involved) will not trigger a terroristic threat statute. This is not…

Clearly the First Amendment does not prohibit, or even address, negative consequences in the private sphere from speech (this is the whole concept of the “market place of ideas” - bad speech is subjected to the court of public opinion and repudiated).

Since charter schools receive gov’t funds and are apparently categorized as public schools under many state laws, there is an at least non-trivial argument that they are or should be subject to the First.

Hate crime laws require that the defendant have committed or attempted to commit bodily injury (not the case here) - there is no “hate speech” law criminalizing bigoted speech per se.

Both of those statutes define a “riot” as a “public disturbance.” Unless I missed something, the article didn’t mention a riot (as in a “public disturbance”), just an (exceptionally) offensive FB page. On the other hand, it does look like you could potentially be charged with inciting a riot, even if one never…

Looks like its not clear whether students of charter schools have constitutional protection or not:

Fair enough. And realistically, these statistics are necessarily pretty elastic, given the amount of guesstimation involved (how can we ever realistically know the actual number of rapes?). Safe to say in any event that the vast majority never result in prison.

“After hiring a new attorney, Celestin claimed his initial representation bungled the case by failing to object to “hearsay statements” and the illegally-recorded phone calls. He was granted a second trial. It would never happen, despite Jennifer’s determination to testify again. In 2006, a judge ruled previous…

One out of 1000 rapes results in jail time? According to RAINN, 3 out of every 100 result in jail or prison, which is still shocking.

I’m not trying to dispute your point, that’s why I agreed with it. In fact, Turner himself was convicted of the lesser offenses of assault and penetration. I still don’t see how the commenter above can be correct that 97% of sentences for rapists are less harsh than a six month jail sentence. I should point out here…

*does not seem mathematically possible. Sorry.

The average sentence length of someone sentenced for rape is 11 years, so in what way is a 6 month sentence for Turner harsher than 97% of all rapists sentenced? That doesn’t seem not mathematically possible. I don’t quite understand what you are saying.

Ok, yeah, I don’t necessarily disagree, although I’m not aware off hand of the statistics one way or the other. Pleading down to a lesser charge is hardly unique to rape, however; its pretty typical across the board. And while its most likely true that a significant barrier to holding rapists accountable is implicit…

According to the California penal code, the victim must be rendered incapable of resisting by intoxication and that condition must be known or reasonably should be known by the defendant.

“Brock Turner’s sentence was harsher than 97% of all rapists sentenced”

The already existing penalty for rape is 3, 6 or 8 years in California (Ca Penal Code Section 264) - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269