[SSS Two]

Harassment and threats are not free speech protected by the constitution.

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.

[meadsjn]

People have a right to live in peace. That right does not have to be enumerated in the constitution or any other document. There are, however, numerous laws and ordinances against disturbance of the peace.

People have a right to be secure in their persons, homes, and effects. This one is enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[meadsjn]

Harassment requires repeated unwanted contact.

Harassment can be a one-time event. Repeated harassment just makes it worse.

[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