REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Friday, October 14, 2022 05:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8617
PAGE 3 of 5

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:37 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



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

I think you're right about the judge and avoidance. I think the parade of humans behaving badly they see must wear on them after a while.

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

There were no fists here and clearly we're not a civilized society yet.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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?


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

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:42 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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:

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


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.



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 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?



Best point you made - all this will serve in the end are lawyers. This is not Saving America's Freedom case.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:52 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



There's another saying: "If you play with fire you're going to get burned." I think that may be what the judge found the most eye-rolling, "why do you go looking for trouble? Why do you have to play with fire?" The marcher was pretty clearly projecting "I am Dead Mohammed, back from the grave..." you have to think he was looking for confrontation. Reminds me of when Frem says cops will plant themselves in Occupy to discredit them - this person is there to elicit this response - that's public endangerment, that is like yelling fire at a theatre. Why was he filming the crowd? Almost like he was waiting for that response.

This is this case, not an assault on religion - which is what the Christian Fundies want you to think - funny, never thought I'd see you on their side.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:54 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.


"... that's public endangerment..."

Eh, no, it's not. BTW when you claim something is 'like' something else, for example, that this was 'like' yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre, it really does have to be 'like' it. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:55 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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?




I think you and Anthony have the same faulty extreme-o meters.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:56 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 wonder where the ACLU is?"

This may or may not be a case they would like to take up. But AFAIK the ACLU has to be invited in. They do not simply swoop in and take over like Batman.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 11:02 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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.

--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  

Monday, February 27, 2012 11:03 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

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

Eh, no, it's not.



I think this case will fade like many before it when the next daily outrage happens, but if it did go to another hearing, I would not be surprised if some attorney for the Muslim tried to argue that somewhere (and maybe possibly fail). I think their case would be on the Zombie guy's intentions. Was he there just for the fun of the parade or was he there to provoke? Maybe Hero has some insight.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 11:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 11:05 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.




Very true, Justice is suppose to be blind, still think it's strange to see.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 11:16 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



That's again such a broad description - I would not disagree with the principles. If you want to get into a broader discussion, I'm fine with that, there are all sorts of twists and turns that make any kind of 1 stop shopping almost impossible. Why can't those films be shown on any channel? Etc., there's lots of gray areas.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 11:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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?


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

Monday, February 27, 2012 12:50 PM

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.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 1:12 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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?




To recap: IMHO there wasn't enough evidence so the charge of harrassment was eventually dropped.

The judge told the victim "if you act like blank, people will think you're a doofus," and continued to try and educate the young man. If this surprises you you should spend some time in court, judges summations can be full of opinion and instruction so the citizen can avoid making the same mistake again.

It still surprises me how you're not questioning the atheist's motives at all, or how this story has suddenly come to light months later.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 1:13 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.


"IMHO there wasn't enough evidence ..."

Really. That's pretty silly.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 1:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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?

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 1:55 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

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

Really. That's pretty silly.



Your evidence is...?

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:02 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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?



I think it's funny too! And the Christian right is fanning the flames. I think AU is confused, he doesn't know where to jump in.

Would there have been Catholics coming off the curb? We'll probably never know, not in the timeframe we saw - I doubt it, but then there also haven't been such violent reactions to negative portrayals of the Pope as there have been to Mohammed. I think you are being incredibly generous to say he only wanted to parody Islam - he had to know this would be deeply offensive. I would give an Atheist even more % chance that he would know the buttons to push and the consequences of denigrating other religions.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:07 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.


"Your evidence is...?"

Credible pertinent testimony that the judge threw out.

And yours?

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:09 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



I find it funny that you don't point out the suspiciousness of the timing of it, or of the misinformation of much of it. This is so full of political & media manipulation and agenda, hard to know what is true.

And I'm sure there are Muslims who have the same trip wire code of behavior as you do, except it pertains to in this case, "if you lay your hands on my prophet... I will take the offensive cardboard sign away from you."

I think the judge should get a raise, but I'm sure with the s-storm he'll get canned.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:10 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.


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.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:24 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

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

Credible pertinent testimony that the judge threw out.

And yours?



No way you can go by that video, that only leaves the Officer's testimony, and he wasn't there since the atheist stated he had to go get a cop. Funny, the Muslim wanted a cop too because he thought the sign was against the law. More stuff keeps coming out about this - I see people calling the Muslim "Immigrant." "get that Immigrant out of here!" Seems to have touched a lot of hate nerves.
The cop said the Muslim admitted to grabbing the atheist (I'd like to see that testimony, grabbing the sign or the guy?) but I think the judge thought better just to send them packing with a warning and hoped it blow over. I think he was afraid of it getting out of hand. Sorry buddy!
And also check your sources - ironically I would discount most of the Christian ones - in the pecking order of hate amongst religions it looks like Christians have chosen Atheists over Muslims.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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?

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:28 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



That's an oversimplified reading of what happened, but go for it, tell us how it works out.


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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:34 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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?



I am not dismissing that - I do want to know the judge's reason for not finding that sufficient. Remember, we're getting most of this from questionable sources - I want to see that testimony, I want to see how it was asked and answered. Did he think he asked if had grabbed the sign or the guy? The victim in my opinion is not a credible witness.
Other witnesses? Man, it was dark, the guy's a Muslim in the US, sounds like a turkey shoot.

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

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:36 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.


Well hey, as long as nobody catches it ON VIDEO, it doesn't matter what anyone else says, and I can admit to it all I want, even to a cop, and I'll still be golden.

That better?

It's still a freebie.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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.

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.

--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  

Monday, February 27, 2012 3:57 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Do you like beating people up Kiki so you're looking for a freebie?

Obviously the guy has the right to wear whatever sign he wants and whatever costume he wants. I understand that the Muslim man was offended and wanted to give the Atheist a piece of his mind. But when you do that then the legal system gets involved and sometimes you come out on top and often you don't, since the Atheist was within his rights, even if he was being obnoxious, but there's no law against being obnoxious or doing provocative things that might offend others.

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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:13 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



If that's suppose to be a summary of my POV then it's a complete mischaracterization of it. Remember, I'm in doubt as to whether he was assaulted - "harassment" was the original charge, that seems to be in line with what SignyM said the F-Fathers used the 1st Amendment for, to piss off/harass the British. Details are still unfolding, and the sources are still to be questioned.

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.




I think this country - in large part fueled by the speed and trust we put in questionable Internet sources - suffers from a rush to judgement sometimes. I did that with a Sarah Palin cover photo, misinterpreting the reasons behind it. It's not hard to do. I hope you don't let your passion for Free Speech make you over look the Truth.

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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:04 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

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


Hello,

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.

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.

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.

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.

--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  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:21 AM

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!

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:27 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



I agree with this for the most part. If it turns out that he can be tried and convicted of assault as it is written into PA law, then I'd have to conclude that that was fair. I don't share your opinion these criteria have been met yet from what we know from Internet sources.

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.



Thankfully, court decisions are not based on Internet factoids delivered by questionable sources.

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.



Those are 2 separate items. I never said Free Speech should not be protected - that's the misrepresentation that you and others have made. I did say he was being provocative and got what he was probably looking for. I get the feeling - and this is why I sort of called you a Zealot, (I think I just lumped you in with Zealots, another thread ) that you wanted me to say "Provocative speech should not be protected," so you could tee off and go all Patrick Henry on me.

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.



Zealots of any color are dangerous imho (unless they're artists), they are Believers in every negative sense that Whedon was describing, often blinded by their rigid beliefs, there's no room for compromise or consideration - they think their extreme position is the only position and they usually seem to find their opposing, opposite Zealot and do battle - sounds like Congress doesn't it? 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.


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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:28 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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?

--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  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:33 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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:

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.

--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  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:34 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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?




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.

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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:44 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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?

--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  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:47 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



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:

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.




"The First (of 3) Marches: "Bloody Sunday"
On March 7, 1965, an estimated 525 to 600 civil rights marchers headed east out of Selma on U.S. Highway 80. The march was led by John Lewis of SNCC and the Reverend Hosea Williams of SCLC, followed by Bob Mants of SNCC and Albert Turner of SCLC. The protest went smoothly until the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and found a wall of state troopers waiting for them on the other side. Sheriff Jim Clark had issued an order for all white males in Dallas County over the age of twenty-one to report to the courthouse that morning to be deputized. Commanding officer John Cloud told the demonstrators to disband at once and go home. Williams tried to speak to the officer, but Cloud curtly informed him there was nothing to discuss. Seconds later, the troopers began shoving the demonstrators. Many were knocked to the ground and beaten with nightsticks. Another detachment of troopers fired tear gas. Mounted troopers charged the crowd on horseback.[9]
Televised images of the brutal attack presented people with horrifying images of marchers left bloodied and severely injured, and roused support for the U.S. civil rights movement. Amelia Boynton was beaten and gassed nearly to death; her photo appeared on the front page of newspapers and news magazines around the world.[10] Seventeen marchers were hospitalized, and the day was nicknamed "Bloody Sunday"."

Someone tried to pull a poster off this guy - they don't compare. If you're going to say they are functionally the same then I think you are being purposely obtuse and a bit disingenuous.

Here's my proposal: create a new category to address smaller instances like this one. 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. I'm not sure how the FTC would handle that, but that's my first pass at a solution that I think has more proportion to this specific case.

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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:01 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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?




I think lecturing a rape victim is heinous and beyond insensitive.
I think judges make these kinds of post finding statements for these kinds of cases on a regular basis, to let those in attendance and the parties involved understand their findings. I can't imagine a court where they just proclaim a decision and make no further comment.
So I think trying to educate this dude was well within a judges sop. You and the atheists and Christian Fundies can call it a lecture, I call it trying impart wisdom so it's less likely to happen again.

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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:07 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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:

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:

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.


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.

--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  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

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


Hello,

Which has nothing to do with explaining a ruling, and is in fact a lecture.

--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  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:20 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



No, 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:

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?



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

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.




I think it needs work too. I think the judge in this case considered the proof available and what was and wasn't grabbed and ruled accordingly. I think he showed an amazing amount of courage, even though at the time it just seemed like simple common sense.

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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:27 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

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


Hello,

It depends on what you mean by 'same.' If you mean, "Should they have the same punishment" then the answer is obviously no. If you mean, "Should they still be treated as crimes" then the answer is yes. If indeed grabbing people or their stuff is harassment. There's some disagreement on that point. But it's definitely a crime.

Both are crimes and wrong and deserve to be addressed, just as lecturing the victim of a crime is wrong and deserves to be addressed.

You often accuse me of making false equivalencies, but I feel I am making appropriate equivalencies. In other words, I am not dismissing an inappropriate act simply because there are worse inappropriate acts. They are both wrong. I am not dismissing a crime because the victim was a jerk, either.

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?

--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  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:43 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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?



Wait for it.... absolutely Nes, I mean Yo! Turns out this is not a yes or no question, and greater brains than mine have worked this one over for ages, including some pretty big brains on this forum. The "can't yell fire in a crowded theater," yeah, there are definitely circumstances that should be considered, have to be considered by law. I really don't know what the answer is, as you mentioned my first pass needed work. Essentially, I don't think one size fits all, you might say I feel zealous about that opinion.

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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:49 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Well, you're honest. That's a good character trait.

--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  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:54 AM

CAVETROLL


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?




Anthony,
In the section of court transcript I appended in my reply to Pizmo, judge Martin said; "...I'm a Muslim. I'm offended..." He admitted, in his own words, that he is emotionally involved in the case. Removing any pretense of non-involvement and rendering him defenseless against a charge of judicial misconduct.

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:48 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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!



Sorry CT, I missed this earlier - I was trying to keep up with Anthony's running comments and it must have whizzed by.

If you have direct court document links I'd like to see them - when I said he wasn't a muslim I got it from:

http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/muslim-attacks-atheist-muslim-judg
e-dismisses-case-blames-victim


"The premise of post that prompted this thread is that the judge (magistrate) is a Muslim and is biasing his judgment to benefit another Muslim. The only “proof” that he is a Muslim is that in listening to the audio, many of us believe he says he is a Muslim.

A conservative blogger, not me, who had originally assumed the same and posted as such, Andrew C. McCarthy, checked it carefully and concluded that he apparently did not say he is a Muslim. According to Wikipedia, “Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others."

I have not read anything (that I trust at least) about "witnesses" not being allowed to testify. The iphone video is inconclusive at best - if there's a time stamp you can refer me to that has evidence of something more than harassment I'm all eyes.

I'm not a Muslim excuser or Liberal do-gooder, I'm more disappointed in this knuckle headed atheist - like, "Really? Your point is?" I think instigators should share some responsibility for the fallout from their actions.

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

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:36 AM

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.


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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:05 PM

OONJERAH



Yesterday: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/305471/20120227/iran-pastor-youcef-nad
arkhani-execution-update.htm


"Iran is denying the existence of the execution order on Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.

"Following years of trials, Nadarkhani was reportedly sentenced to death ..."


Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL