Nothing that transpired was anything other than a giant CF based upon the girls in question lying (and getting away with it) and ruining another persons life.
> Nothing she did deserves what happened. Nothing.
she was convicted of harrasment of minors by a jury in a court of law. presumably there was supporting evidence of the harrasment charges, and that's not something that the article disputes.
> presumably there was supporting evidence of the harrasment charges
Yeah, the media shitshow...
There were no DeepFakes, a few text messages raising concerns about some young girls' behavior and a DA running around during an election year slandering this woman to get votes. Oh, and a lying teenager capitalizing on the drama to get movie and book deals.
The result: a woman who's life was forever turned upside down and found guilty by an "impartial" jury.
> “She was convicted of sending five text messages,” Birch sighs. “There wasn’t one threat in any of them. All the messages said was, ‘You should be aware of what your daughters are posting.’”
that's what her lawyer says, the appeals court disagrees with what her lawyer says, they upheld the original decision and explain in detail why in the opinion https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-spone. "The above cited evidence directly contradicts Spone's suggestion that she was a concerned parent who had a legitimate purpose in sending the series of anonymous text messages."
> "The above cited evidence directly contradicts Spone's suggestion that she was a concerned parent who had a legitimate purpose in sending the series of anonymous text messages."
OK, I read it, and I can't see that it does. Explain how. (And no, her doing it anonymously doesn't contradict her being genuinely concerned. Why would it?)
