REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Friday, October 14, 2022 05:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9900
PAGE 4 of 5

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:01 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



The video isn't working for me here, but the link at Youtube does. Yeah, definitely, to my ear it sure sounds like he says "Imma Muslim," I can't imagine how the source I quoted thought otherwise or why his office when asked said he wasn't a Muslim.
So where do we go from here then? Do we not allow Muslims to be judges in cases involving Muslims? If a Catholic church is broken into do we have to make sure Catholics are not any part of the proceedings? If a black man attacks a white man, do we need to make sure the judge isn't either?

Here's another thought: if these were 2 white guys, any religion, college rivals, and one was wearing a cardboard sign that said, "You school sucks" and one guy tried to pull the sign off the other guy, would we be talking about it? If the judge decided to give them a break and not add a notch to their record and dismiss it as "boys being boys" would anyone even notice? Would we be screaming about the 1st Amendment? It's only because Muslims are involved that the judges actions are seen as an attack on our Constitution and our Freedoms. I think that's an extreme opinion. I have concerns about Muslim actions, but not this one, this seems pretty harmless in it's context.

I think the judge's comments after his "Imma Muslim" are also worth considering (emphasis mine):

"But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.

This is what — as I said, I spent half my years altogether living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as “ugly Americans.” This is why we are referred to as “ugly Americans,” because we’re so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

All that aside I’ve got here basically — I don’t want to say, “He said, she said.” But I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other. I understand — I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he shouldn't be putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:00 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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?


I agree with 98% of your comments and I'm glad to hear you state them so emphatically. There are 2 levels I see this case being used to argue: the general, larger one which you are addressing quite well, and the "this specific case." The latter, I don't mind that the judge reached this conclusion in this particular case. If he had stuck to the harassment charge I would have been fine with that too. The former, the Big Issue, I agree - immigrants should show respect for the country they are adopting by learning their laws and language. I would try and do both if I moved to their country - seems most fair. As an American I would hope we can accommodate their needs if we can, seems a central part of our self-image somewhere, "tired, poor..."

My main objections are what I perceive as the rush to judgement, the obvious manipulation of the story (truly a zombie story, brought back from the dead), and the nature of people in the US now to instantly rail and see the extremes in even the most simple conflicts. I don't think a nation with everyone screaming at once without any desire for compromise leads to progress. I'm guessing you have been on committees where progress was made jointly and also project creep occurred. Simple constructive discussion where both sides add to a resolution gets lost in the current sensational environment. Instead we get Congress, no one budging, nothing gets done.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:11 AM

CAVETROLL


Tolerance is a two way street. I haven't seen Hamid Karzai apologizing for his people rioting. If we're the only ones tolerating how muslims act, all we're doing is appeasing them. That didn't work so well for Chamberlain.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:44 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Apologizing to the occupying country for people being pissed about being occupied? Your analogy to Chamberlain is fatally flawed, as Germany wasn't occupying England. Here's a better one: If the US was occupied by China, should the president apologize to China for US citizens rioting against Chinese actions in the US?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:49 AM

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.

Here's what another atheist thinks about this.

http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2012/02/lets-keep-sense-of-proportio
n-about.html

Not to say that it's the best decision ever, and an example of why there really shouldn't be any exceptions to free speech, but understandable after further investigation.

As for the judge's comments, I've known plenty of atheists, being one myself, who have a complete disrespect for religion, and calling the guy a doofus is probably warranted. The atheist was a disrespectful doofus, and the Muslim was a disrespectful violent thug. It goes both ways.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:57 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Oh, btw, the judge in question is Lutheran.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:05 AM

BYTEMITE


I have checked around, and this correction has been made to a number of articles pertaining to the case. Likely the judge was misheard or misunderstood, and merely speaking of his Iraq experience.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291963/be-or-not-be-muslim-andrew
-c-mccarthy

The judge apparently actually said "IF I'm a Muslim, I'd find it offensive."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:11 AM

CAVETROLL


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:12 AM

CAVETROLL


I've listened to the audio. That's not what it sounds like to me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:17 AM

CAVETROLL


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...

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:25 AM

BYTEMITE


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.


So we hear, but that isn't the same thing as a signed confession, and there also might be circumstantial reasons why that was dismissed. One version of this story I encountered was that the police officer never heard a confession at all, but rather took Percy's word for it.

1kiki's provided information is even more to the point - if the judge is a Lutheran, it can hardly be called Sharia law to inform someone that they are an idiot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:31 AM

CAVETROLL


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:33 AM

BYTEMITE


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.


I restate my opinion that any reasonably intelligent population shouldn't be in the business of burning books, and doing so makes them all gigantic tools.

In the very least, doing so puts them among some very unlovely company.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:37 AM

BYTEMITE


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.


No really? I wasn't aware of that precedent that Judge Martin called upon, and I DON'T hate it with a passion. Clearly I wasn't only saying that the Judge followed the letter of the law, I love the government telling me what I can do with my creativity and noise hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Derp.

(You'll be looking for "offensive speech")

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:03 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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


I wouldn't rule out tampering - that would be easy on a basic PC to cut out "if." If he's not a muslim, he's really not a muslim, can't make him one. It sounds like "Imma Muslim," to me too, but this makes more sense considering the agenda driven source. Some True Believers have been known to carve words in their own foreheads and then lie about who did it to cast suspicions on others.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:04 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


If the judge's ruling was based on lack of evidence, that's one thing. (Tho the fact that the attacker admitted to the police what he had done might fall under 'excited utterance' and therefore be excluded from Miranda, and therefore included as evidence. As a matter of law, he could have been wrong.)

It's his admonishment I find troubling. Living in this country, whether you are a natural born citizen, an immigrant who's attained citizenship, or an alien, you are obliged to follow the law of the land. The most basic law of the land is the Constitution, which protects free speech (some types of speech are not protected). That gives people the right to offend other people's sensibilities, without legal restriction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:10 AM

BYTEMITE


I don't really think the judge was saying that a Muslim can ignore US law because of their religious law, I think he was just trying to give the atheist some perspective about what it's like in other countries. And call him a moron. Which he probably is.

So really the bigger objection to all of this is that it upholds the idea that it's okay beating someone up for personal expression because they're offensive, but, as I just posted, that's the interpretation of the law.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:31 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I can understand a 'you don't know how good you have it here' lecture, or a 'don't be such an ugly American' lecture but this: "you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights" is over the line. Pearce was well within his First Amendment rights.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:24 PM

BYTEMITE


Not that I agree with it, but based on the judge's interpretation of that "offensive speech" exception, he actually was.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No, he wasn't. I looked at several Supreme Court rulings on free speech, you can utter "offensive speech". What you CAN"T do is go up to someone personally and verbally bully them by calling them (in the particular case that I read) a "fascist", or disparage or dehumanize a whole class of people via "hate speech".

So, how is "hate speech" different from "I am the zombie Mohammed"? Hate speech would involve saying things like "All Muslims are dangerous and should be rounded up". The parade was silly, and Muslims might find it offensive, but it was neither personally threatening nor categorically hateful. It was, in fact, the exact example of the kind of free speech that is protected by the Constitution- disparaging an IDEA instead of a people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:49 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I would agree that the Atheist has the right under free speech to be zombie Muhammad, its not tasteful and it is sort of mean, but it is within his free speech rights as Kiki and Signe said. I think what Byte is trying to say isthat sometimes if its a blurry line, between hate speech and not lets say, a judge has some wiggle room in what s/he can decide about a case. Whether we agree with his/her decision is up for debate, but the decision was made and apparently the action was close enough to the hate speech line that it was chunked in. I personally don't think it counts as hate speech to dress up in a costume of anything. What did his sign say? Maybe that's where the hate speech comes in?

I find exceptions for hate speech, as in it is no longer free, kind of odd. Part of me thinks its a good idea and that since those Westborough thugs are spewing hate speech they shouldn't be allowed to do it anymore. But then there's a part of me that says what if they expand hate speech laws to apply to other things and then it nibbles away at free speech little by little? Because that totally could happen.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:01 PM

BYTEMITE


Hate speech is not the same as offensive speech or provocation.

This was provocation.

As an example, ask yourself why in the wikipedia section I called out, they have a picture of the Westborough Baptist Church, and why a judge ruled against them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I don't think so, if by 'provocation' you mean 'fighting words'.

Fighting words and offensive speech
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[28] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[29] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[30][31]

Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[32] However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[33] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[34] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[35]



I'm sure Pearson didn't know there were Muslims in the crowd. Nor did he direct his costume and sign specifically at them. I can see how Westborough fails to have protection - it's directed specifically at individuals and can cause severe emotional distress. After all, they target grieving families at funerals.

Pearson in costume in a parade? Not so much.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:34 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


This has gotten more interesting. I see where both of you are coming from. I would tend to agree that unless the costume wearer is directly harassing and taunting the Muslim he is protected under free speech as Kiki says. But I see how Byte and some judges can come to the other conclusion in a case like this.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:10 PM

BYTEMITE


Religious beliefs are very personal. So I can see why the judge interpretted the way he did.

Plus, I mean, jeez, most times Muslims don't have to be directly present when someone lampoons their prophet to be offended or turn violent. A guy drawing cartoons in denmark has had a similar result, I don't think it's a stretch to say that this zombie Mohammad is always going to be provocative.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Just because someone is culturally conditioned to be provoked doesn't mean we should bend over backwards to protect their sensitivities. In fact, that is a darn good way to slowly move the baseline of your society.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:26 PM

BYTEMITE


No kidding. When I'm explaining the letter of the law that doesn't mean I LIKE IT. As I've already said. Several times.

Anyway, I'm starting to get frustrated here, so yeah. I'm going to wander off now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:46 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

As to the letter of the law, speech involving public figures is specifically allowed. I think the widely known chief Prophet of all Islam is a public figure, which gives this particular speech even stronger protections, even when weighed against exemptions.

In my opinion.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:49 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I agree with Signe and Anthony. But I see that Byte is just saying how it often happens, not that she agrees with it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:43 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Me, I have a broader definition of "Free Speech" than most, but y'all knew that, I just wanted to add this...

You know, Mohammad himself probably would have found that downright hilarious - he *did* have a rather snarky sense of humor and much enjoyed taking the piss out of the self-important, lest one forget this is the guy who showed up for prayers in a robe with one sleeve cause he didn't wanna disturb his beloved cat sleeping on the other...
And one can just imagine him with this huge grin the whole time daring anyone to say something.

In fact, culturally he was as much a pot-stirring jerk as Mikey can be around here - one reason various leaders at the time weren't too happy with the fellow.

You know what he prolly woulda done if he'd been still alive and saw that ?
He would have walked behind the guy doing zombie impressions and mocking him for such a poor performance, lol.

Seriously, he was LIKE that.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 1, 2012 4:30 AM

BYTEMITE


When it talks about public figures it means existing people who are for various reasons or circumstances under the scrutiny of the public.

The prophet Mohammed is more like... a public domain character. But more specifically, he could be taken as a representative figure, and therefore potentially a stereotype, of a swath of population.

Frankly I don't see much difference, going by the letter of the law, between this and say dressing up in black face and having a black person violently take issue.

Both people involved are, according to the law, in the wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 1, 2012 5:34 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.


I'll take that as a thanks to me for starting the thread in the 1st place.


You're welcome.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 4:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BYTE: To try to come up with an analogy to your "blackface" moment:

"Let's say you have two people who promote education. So one decides to dress up as a hillbilly and one decides to dress up as a black street thug, one carries a sign saying "I am dum" and the other carries a sign saying "I dindt graduat hi skool".

Offensive?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 6:30 AM

BYTEMITE


If someone were to attack them based on this, then there's an element of provoking a fight.

With deliberate provocation, the person expressing themselves so provocatively might be charged with disturbing the peace for what ensues. With an accidental provocation, in a case where in retrospect the circumstances would obviously have been provoking, they wouldn't be charged but a judge might inform them how backwards stupid they are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 6:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, you presume that ANY attack is because it was "provoked"? There seems to be an element of "blaming the victim" here. Or could there possibly be attackers who are unreasonably sensitive?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 6:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


By the way, here is the decision on provocation

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.
This does not prohibit general statements made to the public at large, but statements made to a specific person

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 6:51 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Byte

Deliberate provocation isn't defined in WIKI the same way you seem to be meaning it. They require a personal, to your specific person, provocation.

And public satire - that age old means of deflating authority and propriety around the globe - is DEFINITELY protected under the constitution.

BTW - if a Catholic attacked the 'pope' figure, would you say it was due to provocation? Or do you only think it applies to Muslims, b/c, in your view, they are 'specially' sensitive to portrayal of persons?

Or do you think the Muslim in question should be allowed his stated justification - b/c he figured for sure such a thing was against the law?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 7:18 AM

BYTEMITE


I'm explaining what the judge's reasoning here is. The specific case could easily be considered some blurring between hate speech (which can be spoofing religious figures as much as it can be black face or burning crosses) and provocative/offensive speech/fighting "words".

Obviously, some groups of people will find certain kinds of speech more offensive than others, for historical or cultural reasons. Hitting a known berserk button and causing a disturbance of peace, deliberately or not, and this result, is not necessarily a matter of increased sensitivity or favouritism towards one group or another but the government's vested interest in keeping the peace.

The jurisdiction where this judge works has a hate crime ordinance, which directed the result of this ruling. Now, hate crime ordinances have actually been struck down by the US Supreme Court, but because of the way the system works, it's generally on a case by case basis.

The aggrieved atheist could try to appeal the ruling, and go about it that way, but I suspect he won't, because ultimately neither of them were convicted for anything. He could have been charged with disturbing the peace under their ordinance, and therefore I'd say he actually got off lucky.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 7:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Actually further info has come out regarding the manner in which the trial proceeded, in which the zombie pope was NOT allowed to testify as witness (although he offered to) because that testimony wouldn't jibe with how the judge wanted things to go, also I believe the video was excluded.

Choo Choo goes the railroad train, as it were.

Par for the course these days in our so-called justice system, that the court gets to cherry pick the evidence and testimony to favor something other than justice.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 7:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

I understand the appeal to be more sensitive. I don't generally go around calling entire groups by the most offensive categorical name possible, nor do I trip over the "provocation" line by calling individuals by offensive categorical names. Nor do I engage in "hate speech" (which the right routinely does) by suggesting that certain types of ppl be "put down". Hey, I've had sensitivity training and I use it!

But if I were to spoof something that I find truly ridiculous, I would be well within my rights to do so. You cannot have a free exchange of ideas anywhere without someone, somewhere getting offended. And there is no Constitutional right to not ever being offended. And of all of the Supreme Court decisions that I've read limiting free speech, I think they would agree with me.
www.anarchytv.com/speech/cases.html

Quote:
He could have been charged with disturbing the peace
Only as an extreme perversion of justice.

FREM: Indeed. The judge threw out SO much evidence that it's clear that he already knew what his decision was going to be.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 8:08 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"The specific case could easily be considered some blurring between hate speech (which can be spoofing religious figures as much as it can be black face or burning crosses) and provocative/offensive speech/fighting "words"."


But hate speech is constitutionally protected.

"Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."


And it is definitely NOT "fighting words".

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 8:31 AM

BYTEMITE


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.


Of COURSE he's wrong, but that doesn't mean the decision is without PRECEDENT.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 8:33 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
speech that incites imminent lawless action


Hello?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 8:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So you may have covered the precedent, but... what is it? Can you cite the decision?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 9:08 AM

BYTEMITE


I'd say Feiner vs. New York is an example. Most of the time Supreme Court does act to strike down exceptions against free speech, but the courts have also explicitly said that they do consider exceptions to free speech to exist. There's a lot of attempts to clarify this, but it really comes across as arbitrary and deliberately technical, and mostly to ensure that the only free speech allowed is the kind that is meaningless and has no broader impact. It's like how burning a draft card wasn't okay (thus an action that would actually make a difference in not allowing a person to be drafted), but wearing a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" is (ineffectual speech).

So the law is kind of a muddled area. In local courts you probably expect to find them upholding ordinances and enforcing them in the interests of keeping the peace. At higher levels, you'd see more of them striking down ordinances as unconstitutional.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 9:21 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Fighting words, which these are not, or promotes direct violence, or imminent lawless action - "string him up", "rush the place". Even CROSS BURNING has been found protected, unless it is a specific threat of violence against particular persons.

Otherwise - no.

Hate speech which does NOT cross very specific lines - "obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that INCITES imminent lawless action" - 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.


"Focusing on the "rise up in arms and fight for their rights" part of Feiner's speech, the court found that Feiner's First Amendment rights were not violated, because his arrest came when the police thought that a riot might occur."


Feiner wasn't just parodying something, or offering general comments. He was specifically promoting violent action - he was inciting.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 3, 2012 10:02 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Fighting words, which these are not


Except apparently they were, unless you're arguing that a fight didn't break out over it.

The "words" in "fighting words" don't have to be spoken.

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.


Generally... Yes to the first part. But the second part depends on the jurisdiction and local laws. Decisions on a local level are made according to local law. Local laws are overturned as unconstitutional if brought to the attention of a higher court.

Hate crime ordinances are fairly common. And continue to exist on the books until there's cause TO overturn them.

So this person could appeal, to try to get it overturned, but probably won't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2021 6:31 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Seems like Moslem Genocidal Sharia Law violates the international law?
If burning themselves alive and chopping off their own heads over a funny cartoon isn't breaking international laws...well then ...


https://www.theblaze.com/news/taliban-hang-bodies-crane-afghanistan

The sleepy Biden Kamala Admin had praised them for being businesslike and professional while hundreds of Americans still remain trapped.

All of these terrorist militia jihadi murdering people are mohammedans, everyone of them prays to that 1400 yr old terrorist pedophile named mahomet with his 'talking donkey' and all islamics muslims they pray to that stupid Moongod of rape and death called Al-Lah.

Some people wonder why I mostly class the entire thing as 'mohammedanism' it actually helps clear up a lot of propaganda and confusion, I seperate it into Shiite and Sunni and then these people break down into their local tribal, ethnic jihadi, family and regional conflicts




The Taliban raghead failure CAN’T TAKE ON THE ISLAMIC STATE ...what islamic state...I thought ISIS was almost totally tunred to dust?
https://warontherocks.com/2021/10/the-taliban-cant-take-on-the-islamic
-state-alone/
So this cluster fuck is going to allow ISIS and Al-Qaeda to make a comeback?


So Trump Deranged Syndrome, the haters would you still vote to re-elect Kamala Biden?





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL