Hacker News Reader

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."

View on HN

> "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?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com