Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

That time is passed then, right?

---

NO, that time is still here. It is enshrined in our constitution.

Quote:

---

If you watch the video I think you'll see there's nothing there, not anything to prosecute someone with

---

There is more than just the video. There is also the statement by the victim and by the police officer who SAID that the alleged perp admitted on the spot that he grabbed the victim. And the street was lined with witnesses who surely could have been interviewed. Seems like the judge went out of his way to dismiss the case... unfairly, according to all of the facts that I've read.

Possibly the judge wanted to avoid a backlash. In other words, his decision might have been based on fear.

-----------------

HERE is how you handle a demonstration you don't like: You get the peeps who agree with you to hold a counter-demonstration. For instance, there was a planned Nazi demonstration in my hometown of Buffalo. Police were gathered to protect the demonstrators, nerves were on edge. When it came time, there were about five Nazi demonstrators and about 200 counter-demonstrators. They managed not to beat each other up, but the point was made.

In a civilized society, we use words, not fists. Best stick with that.

---

Quote:

---

I think the 1st was meant for greater things - this trivializes it to me to some extent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
1) Muslim judge in a case involving depiction of Mohammed. Instant grounds for recusing himself or facing charges of judicial misconduct.

Here's an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
2) Clear cut assault. But let's call it harassment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
3) The complaintant has had his first amendment rights violated by the original assaulter, and now by the judge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
4) The public will wind up footing the bill when the lawsuit comes. I can only hope the judge is named as a defendant in the case as well, so he can feel the pain in the wallet along with the public. Because the public clearly has no leg to stand on.

I'd be willing to be the lawyers are already lining up. I wonder where the ACLU is?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
PIZMO- there is a saying ... you might have heard it... that goes "Sticks and stones might break my bones but names will never hurt me".

The response to words you don't like is more words.

I can see that in some cases, a person standing close to another person and speaking in threatening tones might elicit a self-defensive (physical) response, and I suppose it could be argued in court whether that was valid self-defense. But this is not even that case. Someone was marching in the middle of the street, someone came off the curb to accost him. THAT much is clear from the video. The threat, if there was one, came from the accused not the demonstrator.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I think the 1st was meant for greater things - this trivializes it to me to some extent.

---

Greater things than protecting freedom of/from religion? Isn't that one of the foundations of our nation? What greater cause are you looking for?

---

Quote:

---

never thought I'd see you on their side.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"that's public endangerment"

Eh, no, it's not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

never thought I'd see you on their side.

---

Hello,

I suppose if someone defends the rights of Westboro Baptists to hold their hateful signs, one is on the side of the Westboro Baptists.

If someone defends the rights of Nazis to gather and march, one is on the side of the Nazis.

Is that what this comes down to? You want to be on the side of the good guys, and off the side of the bad guys?

The hard thing about living by a set of principles is that sometimes good guys do the wrong thing, and you have to defend- not the bad guys themselves, but their rights. Because if the bad guys lose their rights, the good guys are next.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
PIZMO- There was Supreme Court case protecting the rights of film makers to make and show "obscene" films. I think you would find MOST of the defendants in free speech cases to be somehow not worth defending, but you cannot defend one without the other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The hard thing about living by a set of principles is that sometimes good guys do the wrong thing, and you have to defend- not the bad guys themselves, but their rights. Because if the bad guys lose their rights, the good guys are next.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So, to recap-

The judge, IMHO, ignored ample evidence to unfairly dismiss a case.

Worse, he then scolded the victim for practicing free speech.
-------

So, how does a judge himself get judged? And on which issue?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"IMHO there wasn't enough evidence ..."

Really. That's pretty silly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Of course the story is here to whip fear of Islam. I find ti rather funny that it pits the two most unpopular groups against each other- Muslims and atheists. It's almost one of those staged fights.

As to the atheist's motivations, is pretty clear that he wanted to parody Islam. And the guy dressed up as the Pope wanted to parody Catholicism. So what? Did you see any catholics come off the curb to try and grab the pope's beanie?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The hard thing about living by a set of principles is that sometimes good guys do the wrong thing, and you have to defend- not the bad guys themselves, but their rights. Because if the bad guys lose their rights, the good guys are next.

---

Not to mention how grating it is when a self-admitted villain has to step up and berate folks for their conduct cause no one else will, thankfully averted in this case, but still...

And yes, Siggy, that's about right.

You lay hands on ME without consent, you'll get decked, law or no law, and you'll be damn fortunate if I don't put a boot to you for good measure.

I still find it ironic how no one wanted to reasonably discuss it elsewhere when I brought it up - and IMHO the Judge should be unceremoniously pitched from the bench in disgrace, AND the perp should face charges for a Civil Rights Violation since his intentions were specifically to suppress or discourage the suppression of, Free Speech by another.

And of course, I am, and have always been since the foundation of my own consciousness, of the opinion that the moment deliberate and unwanted physical contact occurs you have the moral, if not legal, right to beat the friggin paste out of who did it.

Period.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Your evidence is...?"

Credible pertinent testimony that the judge threw out.

And yours?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Yanno, next time I see a guy on the street corner ranting about how we're all sinners and going to be destroyed for being worthless, I think I'll take it upon myself to assault him. It looks like assault is free if you claim you were offended.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The officer SAID that the Muslim admitted at the time to grabbing the atheist.

Now maybe he hadn't been Mirandized, but unless that were the case the officer's statement should also be included.

Once the case goes forward, then you can start looking for other witnesses... there were lots of people at the side of the road, not?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

To me, being intentionally provocative isn’t important. Lots of speech IS intentionally provocative. The pecking order of hate isn’t important, either. The conspiracy of propaganda isn’t important. All the ancillary nonsense isn’t important.

This is what’s important: A guy was grievously and publicly insulting of a religious figure.

Some people seem to think it’s okay to accost him for it. Perhaps even expected.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Others don’t feel this way.

Those of us who don’t feel this way are called Zealots who can’t distinguish between shades of gray, being manipulated by various insidious forces.

---

Quote:

---

I hope you don't let your passion for Free Speech make you over look the Truth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
1) Muslim judge in a case involving depiction of Mohammed. Instant grounds for recusing himself or facing charges of judicial misconduct.

Here's an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

---

Turns out he's not a Muslim. Judges who are Christian can't judge Christians?

---

Quote:

---

...Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
3) The complaintant has had his first amendment rights violated by the original assaulter, and now by the judge.

---

He did not - he was able to speak and carry his sign. At least you would have a hard time proving anything beyond Harassment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


I am able to adjust to facts as they develop. I think we all make the best decisions we can with the information available to us. In the case of the Iraq war, I was able to shift my position once it was apparent that all of the relevant facts had been misrepresented, and it was obvious our presence was an abomination to the country.

Some facts are not relevant to this case. For instance, it does not matter if the 'speaker' was being provocative. It does not matter if he was a jerk. It does not matter if this is a potential 'win' for various groups of jerks who might use this to champion their jerk cause.

Some facts are only relevant to the disposition of the judge. Did he suppress evidence pertinent to the case? Did he make a bad ruling? Or was there a legal misstep elsewhere in the process?

A very few facts are relevant to there having been a violation of rights. Did someone accost the speaker? That's the beginning and end of the most pertinent question.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
With the information at hand, it seems almost certain that someone accosted the speaker. If it turns out this did not happen, I will amend my position.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But YOUR position has been that being a jerk and making jerk-ass provocative demonstrations isn't even supposed to be part of the free speech protections.

And there is nothing about this case that will change that fact but your own opinion, because that most shocking fact was provided by your self. In your stated opinion, making intentionally provocative speech should have no protection, and the 'speaker' got what he was looking for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Those of us who don't agree are Zealots who can not distinguish nuance (shades of gray.)

I don't think that's a misrepresentation. I got that from reading your actual words.

I do think it's lamentable.

But you would not be the first otherwise reasonable human being who has shocked me with what I consider to be an unsupportable point of view. Obviously my own position strikes you the same way.

---

Quote:

---

"Provocative speech should not be protected," so you could tee off and go all Patrick Henry on me

---

Quote:

---

I do find it lamentable that someone of your obvious brain power holds such a tight, narrow view, that you consider this case to have the same gravity as marching in Selma. Perspective, context, measured resolution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Mr. Troll,

I do not think a person must necessarily remove themselves from a case due to sharing a religion with one of the accused.

They are only required to do this if they feel their passion for the religion might make them unable to pursue justice fairly.

In this same way, a woman can preside over a rape case involving a woman, and a man can preside over a rape case involving a man. Only if they have strong unbalancing personal opinions should they feel the need to remove themselves.

Whether this judge had strong, unbalancing personal opinions is still under debate, but based on the current information I think it bears looking into. I consider lecturing the victim in this case to be functionally equivalent to lecturing the victim of a rape by telling her she was dressing too provocatively. What did she think was going to happen?

---

Quote:

---

Your compare-o-meter is also busted. Did you watch the guy's own video? Did you hear the Muslim say he wanted to call a cop FIRST because of the sign? You somehow equate that confrontation to rape? Incredible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

"Provocative speech should not be protected," so you could tee off and go all Patrick Henry on me

---

Hello,

You did say that free speech protections were not created so you could piss people off. Which is a position so similar that I find it difficult to find a distinguishing characteristic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

I do find it lamentable that someone of your obvious brain power holds such a tight, narrow view, that you consider this case to have the same gravity as marching in Selma. Perspective, context, measured resolution.

---

The only difference between this case, and an identical case involving some civil rights protester is that you may like the civil rights protester and their position but don't like the jerk and his position.

You call me a zealot for not seeing a difference where there is no difference. The two cases are functionally identical. They need equal protection.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Your compare-o-meter is also busted. Did you watch the guy's own video? Did you hear the Muslim say he wanted to call a cop FIRST because of the sign? You somehow equate that confrontation to rape? Incredible.

---

Hello,

No, Pizmo. I did not compare the confrontations. I compared the lectures. I compared lecturing a victim of one crime to lecturing a victim of another crime.

Do you feel the scale of the crime reaches a point where it's okay to lecture victims? Do you feel that telling the victim that they were being too provocative becomes okay at some point? That there is a line where a victim should expect to have their rights violated?

In short, does it matter whether he was lecturing a rape victim or a victim whose free speech rights were infringed? Why? Because one crime is terrible and one crime isn't? Because you sympathize with one victim more than another?

Is there any point at which it's okay? And if so, why? What relevancy makes it suddenly okay?

---

Quote:

---

I said I agreed with the judge when he said he didn't think the F-Fathers created the first Amendment for that purpose. I agree with that.

---

Quote:

---

Someone tried to pull a poster off this guy - they don't compare.

---

Quote:

---

Attempted Obstruction of Free Speech Misdemeanor - the act of attempting to deny another citizen (? or does that cause a problem?) from expressing their opinion in public.

---

Quote:

---

I call it trying impart wisdom so it's less likely to happen again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

I said I agreed with the judge when he said he didn't think the F-Fathers created the first Amendment for that purpose. I agree with that.

---

Hello,

So, you agree that free speech protections weren't intended to protect against pissing people off? But you feel they should be applied that way anyway? I missed the second part in your initial statement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Someone tried to pull a poster off this guy - they don't compare.

---

Because of severity? Because someone was bleeding in case A and not case B? Because the cops did it? Because rights were not being infringed in both cases?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


I think your proposed law may need some work, and I'm actually opposed to creating new laws when existing ones will do the job. I'm pretty sure there's a law against grabbing other people or their carried possessions without permission.

If no one lays a hand on anyone else, that's good enough for me. Whether it be grabbing their sign, grabbing their body, or grabbing their ass.

---

Quote:

---

Severity of course - attempted murder should not treated the same as harassment - do you think otherwise?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
On the topic of free speech protections, let's talk about what you believe, and not the founding fathers. Do you think provocative asshole speech that enrages a target audience should be protected?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Mr. Troll,

I do not think a person must necessarily remove themselves from a case due to sharing a religion with one of the accused.

They are only required to do this if they feel their passion for the religion might make them unable to pursue justice fairly.

In this same way, a woman can preside over a rape case involving a woman, and a man can preside over a rape case involving a man. Only if they have strong unbalancing personal opinions should they feel the need to remove themselves.

Whether this judge had strong, unbalancing personal opinions is still under debate, but based on the current information I think it bears looking into. I consider lecturing the victim in this case to be functionally equivalent to lecturing the victim of a rape by telling her she was dressing too provocatively. What did she think was going to happen?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
1) Muslim judge in a case involving depiction of Mohammed. Instant grounds for recusing himself or facing charges of judicial misconduct.

Here's an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

---

Turns out he's not a Muslim. Judges who are Christian can't judge Christians?

---

Yes, but if you were say, a judge who was a practicing lutheran and a lutheran accused of assaulting a buddhist who was expressing a lutheran-negative message at the time, that would be grounds to recuse yourself.

Oh, and regarding your assetion that judge Mark Martin isn't a muslim?
From the court transcript, emphasis mine:

Quote:

---

...Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
3) The complaintant has had his first amendment rights violated by the original assaulter, and now by the judge.

---

He did not - he was able to speak and carry his sign. At least you would have a hard time proving anything beyond Harassment.

---

Ample evidence that the defendant charged him and knocked him to the ground. The video was thrown out and the witnesses and the arresting officer were not allowed to testify. How did anyone get a chance to prove anything? Total miscarriage of justice.

And this same parade featured a zombie pope. All those catholics that went after the zombie pope should get their day in court... Oh yeah, THAT NEVER HAPPENED!

---