Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/the-sharia-court-of-pennsylva
nia-the-transcript/

Having a point isn't the issue. Having freedom to make that point, free from having a crime committed against you, is. There are lots of ways the muslim could have objected peacefully, but he didn't. Judge Martin seems to be confused about rights and privileges. In fact, he seems to have them transposed.

Here's a link to the youtube audio of the trial. You can listen for yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
PIZMO, I think you're defending the indefensible. We have two sides, both guys did something, one was in the middle of a street and the other came off the curb to approach. On balance, the guy with the sign was less offensive that the guy who got close. Muslims in this nation need to suck it up and realize that in THIS nation, religion is COMMONLY seen as "fair game". I hate to pull the "If you don't like it go live somewhere else", but the ability to poke fun at government, at religion, and at any and all belief systems is part of the foundation of this nation. If you want to hear someone really rip religion, in much harsher terms that "I am the zombie Mohammed" you should read some of the Founding Fathers.

You can have all of the religious freedom you want, UNLESS it conflicts with our laws and the philosophy behind it, and then you really do have to fall in line. No keeping your wife and daughters jailed in your house, or kidnapping your child-bride, or human sacrifice in the basement; refusing life-saving medical treatment for your child, or keeping someone from expressing a view on religion. That is where "Freedom of religion" ends.

How does that make us different from Iran? Well, it doesn't, since we ALSO apply the death penalty to enforce OUR set of beliefs. But if we were to eliminate the death penalty, we could claim moral superiority.


Now, just to toss something out there related to "sticks and stones... but names will never hurt me", how do you feel about school bullying?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I can't see the video in question about the judge, but people calling this Sharia law are going a bit too far, really. This is one guy being let off because there wasn't sufficient evidence due to a bad video recording and what the judge considered a lot of hearsay from all parties. Compare how many times Muslims are guilty before proven innocent...

---

Quote:

---

Except the defendant admitted to the arresting officer that he charged out of the crowd and attacked the zombie Mohammed. He had the right to remain silent, just not the ability.

---

Quote:

---

Should we or should we not obey their laws? Which is what we were doing, burning defiled holy books, as their religious law demands.

---

Quote:

---

You do realize that with this decision judge Martin has effectively put in place a restriction on freedom of speech. You are free to say what you want, until someone gets offended.

Not much of a right anymore.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
I've listened to the audio. That's not what it sounds like to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I just wanted to opine that once we got little Rappy out of the way, it turned into an interesting thread. I really enjoyed everyone chiming in.

---

Quote:

---

That part of c. 378, § 2, of the Public Law of New Hampshire which forbids under penalty that any person shall address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place," or "call him by any offensive or derisive name," was construed by the Supreme Court of the State, in this case and before this case arose, as limited to the use in a public place of words directly tending to cause a breach of the peace by provoking the person addressed to acts of violence.

---

Quote:

---

That, as applied to a person who, on a public street, addressed another as a "damned Fascist" and a "damned racketeer," it does not substantially or unreasonably impinge upon freedom of speech. P. 574 . (3) The refusal of the state court to admit evidence offered by the defendant tending to prove provocation and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances charged is open to no constitutional objection. P. 574 . 2. The Court notices judicially that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. P. 574 91 N.H. 310, 18 A.2d 754, affirmed.

---

Quote:

---

He could have been charged with disturbing the peace

---

Quote:

---

What I'M trying to say is that the judge's reasoning is WRONG. There is no Constitutional basis for his little finger-wagging sermon to the victim, especially the part where he says the victim exceeded his First Amendment rights, as clearly he did not.

---

Quote:

---

speech that incites imminent lawless action

---

Quote:

---

Fighting words, which these are not

---

Quote:

---

is constitutionally protected. ie to incite means you must be specifically advocating a course of action, not just doing something in general that some people might become upset with.

---