[metmom]

Harassment is not speech at all. It is conduct. Harassment requires repeated unwanted contact. There is no evidence that there is repeated contact at all from the article. There is no evidence anyone has been informed that their contact is unwanted at all. There is no harassment in this matter despite the usage of the word in the article.

"True threats" are not Free Speech. There is no evidence at all that the Idaho electors have faced any "true threats". In fact, one Idaho elector said that the contact isn't even intimidating.

You are making a lot of ASSumptions and broad brush statements with ZERO proof for what you are claiming.

IBTZ

[SSS Two]

You are making a lot of ASSumptions and broad brush statements with ZERO proof for what you are claiming.

Bizarre. I'm saying there is no evidence of threats or intimidation, therefore it is inappropriate to claim a crime has been committed. (At least one elector says there has been no intimidation.)

Due to the lack of evidence, I assume that there was no crime. You take the opposite position. There is no evidence, therefore it is a crime. "Go back to DU"? This is what concerns me about what FR has become.