First Amendment Right
 

I found this article interesting for a couple of reasons, mainly the simple fact that a judge made such a horrendously inept decision regarding the attack.

I'm confident that smarter people on this forum can explain why Judge Martin came to the decision he did:

[url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-and-then/]Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then …[/url]

[I]A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims – dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant who purportedly choked the atheist during a Halloween parade.[/I]
[I]District Judge Mark Martin brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”[/I]

Serious comments, please.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=RedskinRat;888429]I found this article interesting for a couple of reasons, mainly the simple fact that a judge made such a [B]horrendously inept decision regarding the attack.[/B]

I'm confident that smarter people on this forum can explain why Judge Martin came to the decision he did:

[url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-and-then/]Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then …[/url]

[I]A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims – dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant who purportedly choked the atheist during a Halloween parade.[/I]
[I]District Judge Mark Martin brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”[/I]

Serious comments, please.[/quote]

How can you say that it was an inept decision? Why do you use the word "attack"? There is no evidence in the article or in the video that Perce was choked outside of Perce's own claim. Without evidence you can't convict someone...because this is America. Now, maybe Perce was in fact choked, but none of us here have evidence to come to that conclusion, and perhaps the judge did not either.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

Muslim judge?

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=Lotus;888439]How can you say that it was an inept decision? Why do you use the word "attack"? There is no evidence in the article or in the video that Perce was choked outside of Perce's own claim. Without evidence you can't convict someone...because this is America. Now, maybe Perce was in fact choked, but none of us here have evidence to come to that conclusion, and perhaps the judge did not either.[/quote]

I apologize for only posting one source, there are currently so many, but if you read court records you'll see the Judge dismissed the evidence of a police officer on scene who said the attacker admitted he grabbed Perce when he interviewed both Perce and Talaag. I believe that's still assault by definition, unless moslems are now held to a different standard.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE"]ABC 27 covers the story of the zombie Mohammed court case - YouTube[/ame]

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=Hog1;888445]Muslim judge?[/quote]

You're spoiling the surprise!

:(

Re: First Amendment Right
 

Oh, and Jonathan Turley gives a good overview on his blog:

[URL="http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/"]Jonathan Turley[/URL]

[I]There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect.[/I]

Re: First Amendment Right
 

Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Categorical_exclusions"]limits to free speech[/URL]. This guy is entitled to say what he wants about Mohammed and wear a costume of him but as it stands he has no protection under the law of the United States, in fact he should get in trouble for it. If this dummy were to get gunned down the assailant would get no more than a second degree murder charge.

Muslims take insults to Mohammed very seriously, enough to murk you outright. Unless you think you're good to someone dead, keep your thoughts on Mohammed behind closed doors. Ya'heard?

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=saden1;888492]Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Categorical_exclusions"]limits to free speech[/URL].[/quote]

Doesn't cover what Mr. Perce was doing.

[quote=saden1;888492]This guy is entitled to say what he wants about Mohammed and wear a costume of him but as it stands he has no protection under the law of the United States, in fact he should get in trouble for it.[/quote]

Why?

[quote=saden1;888492]If this dummy were to get gunned down the assailant would get no more than a second degree murder charge.[/quote]

He'd probably walk, depending on the judge he went in front of.

[quote=saden1;888492]Muslims take insults to Mohammed very seriously, enough to murk you outright. Unless you think you're good to someone dead, keep your thoughts on Mohammed behind closed doors. Ya'heard?[/quote]

The self-aggrandizement of moslems is the problem, encouraging this by explaining it as their depth of faith.

We should certainly reward people who display a 7th Century mentality toward others in society, that'll help. /sarc

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=RedskinRat;888448]I apologize for only posting one source, there are currently so many, but if you read court records you'll see the Judge dismissed the evidence of a police officer on scene who said the attacker admitted he grabbed Perce when he interviewed both Perce and Talaag. I believe that's still assault by definition, unless moslems are now held to a different standard.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE"]ABC 27 covers the story of the zombie Mohammed court case - YouTube[/url][/quote]

In the article you posted, the police officer said that the alleged assailant admitted to grabbing the man's SIGN and FAKE BEARD. That is different from attacking the person.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

Most recent Supreme Court decision regarding 'Hate Speech'.

[I]In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps on March 2, 2011. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion stating: "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."[116] Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said Snyder wanted only to "bury his son in peace". Instead, Alito said, the protesters "brutally attacked" Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.[/I]

Ah, religion, how I detest it and the excuse it gives people to behave like thugs.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=Lotus;888505]In the article you posted, the police officer said that the alleged assailant admitted to grabbing the man's SIGN and FAKE BEARD. That is different from attacking the person.[/quote]

Look up 'Assault', Lotus, then admit you're wrong.

**** it, I'll do it for you, you'll probably get sidetracked by a picture of a kitten:

[I]In law[/I][I], [B]assault[/B] is a crime [/I][I]causing a victim to fear violence. The term is often confused with battery,[/I][I] which involves physical contact.[/I]

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote]Doesn't cover what Mr. Perce was doing.[/quote]

You can't be serious.



[quote]Why?[/quote]
See the previous response and get a better grasp on the limitations of free speech.



[quote]He'd probably walk, depending on the judge he went in front of.[/quote]
It's easier to blame judge than then the doofus in front of them.


[quote]The self-aggrandizement of moslems is the problem, encouraging this by explaining it as their depth of faith.[/quote]
It need no explanation. Drop blood into shark invested waters and you're bound to get a few feeders. It is the nature of things and your job is to mitigate potential problems and pick your battles.


[quote]We should certainly reward people who display a 7th Century mentality toward others in society, that'll help. /sarc[/quote]
They shouldn't be rewarded and they shouldn't be antagonized. If you spit in my face I am I likely to lose it and gun you down. That's the truth.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=RedskinRat;888507]Look up 'Assault', Lotus, then admit you're wrong.

**** it, I'll do it for you, you'll probably get sidetracked by a picture of a kitten:

[I]In law[/I][I], [B]assault[/B] is a crime [/I][I]causing a victim to fear violence. The term is often confused with battery,[/I][I] which involves physical contact.[/I][/quote]

I said "attacking the person." The person was not attacked. A sign was.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

The diatribe that the judge gave has very little to do with his ultimate sentence. In fact Judge's can tend to give lengthy spiels when they feel strongly about issues. But, the bottomline is that the judge found that no proof beyond a reasonable doubt existed. If his decision is flawed then you go to the appellate court, and show why. That's how it works.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=Lotus;888539]I said "attacking the person." The person was not attacked. A sign was.[/quote]

Cool! So when I drive my fist into your Ann Taylor blouse (hypothetically) then I'm attacking your blouse, not you?

Awesome!

P.S. You didn't get the part about what assault comprises, I see?

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=saden1;888517]You can't be serious.[/quote]

Yeah, see my Westboro example. It can't be all one-way for people of a religious persuasion.

[quote=saden1;888517]See the previous response and get a better grasp on the limitations of free speech.[/quote]

Did. See my comment.

[quote=saden1;888517]It's easier to blame judge than then the doofus in front of them. [/quote]

The judge is at fault.


[quote=saden1;888517]It need no explanation. Drop blood into shark invested waters and you're bound to get a few feeders.[/quote]

I hope you're not suggesting religious bigots or superstitious people are as dangerous as sharks?


[quote=saden1;888517]It is the nature of things and your job is to mitigate potential problems and pick your battles.[/quote]

A judge should be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law, certainly not what this joker did.

[quote=saden1;888517]They shouldn't be rewarded and they shouldn't be antagonized. If you spit in my face I am I likely to lose it and gun you down. That's the truth.[/quote]

No one was spat at, the guy went to a Halloween parade with his family and can't behave. What if he'd take exception to an angel or a devil costume? Great example to set to his kids.

At what point did common decency become so unfashionable?

Re: First Amendment Right
 

After listening to the police officer's testimony on the stand, I'm not sure how the judge could have dismissed this case. In fact, he probably should have never been the one presiding over this case due to conflict of interest. NO doubt he gave the guy that assaulted him a free pass on this.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=RedskinRat;888578]Yeah, see my Westboro example. It can't be all one-way for people of a religious persuasion.

Did. See my comment.
[/quote]

The Westboro case was about on whether the First Amendment protected public protestors at a funeral against tort liability for emotional distress. Synder couldn't prove that he was emotionally damaged to the court. The result of the case would be completely different if Snyder was able to see the protesters and their signs more up close and personal.

[quote] "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself"[/quote]


[quote]The judge is at fault. [/quote]

It's always someone else's fault.




[quote]I hope you're not suggesting religious bigots or superstitious people are as dangerous as sharks?[/quote]

They are worse...sharks have the advantage of naturally being thoughtless automatons.




[quote]A judge should be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law, certainly not what this joker did.[/quote]

The judge did what he thought was best in the eyes of the law. The PA bar association is more than welcome to go after him.


[quote]No one was spat at, the guy went to a Halloween parade with his family and can't behave. What if he'd take exception to an angel or a devil costume? Great example to set to his kids.[/quote]

In your eyes spitting on someone is worse than characterizing Prophet Mohammed. In a Muslim's eyes, there is nothing worse than poking fun at the prophet and depicting him in a negative stereotype . Right or wrong, the insulted determines what is offensive to them, not the offender. In this case I'm not sure if anyone can claim to be the victim.

[quote]At what point did common decency become so unfashionable?[/quote]
Yes, where has it gone? Wait, are we talking about the decency to avoid insulting a whole lot of people or the decency of not getting attacked while insulting a whole lot of people?

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=NC_Skins;888583]After listening to the police officer's testimony on the stand, I'm not sure how the judge could have dismissed this case. In fact, he probably should have never been the one presiding over this case due to conflict of interest. NO doubt he gave the guy that assaulted him a free pass on this.[/quote]

Conflict of interest? So what you're saying is you can't be a christian judge and rule on a matter between a christian and a Muslim due to conflict of interest?

Do you understand what conflict of interest means?

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=saden1;888588]Conflict of interest? So what you're saying is you can't be a christian judge and rule on a matter between a christian and a Muslim due to conflict of interest?

Do you understand what conflict of interest means?[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Why do you capitalize Muslim and not Christian? Is there a grammar rule behind that or are you purposely doing it?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Im no lawyer, and i dont think you are, but based off some of what the judge said it sounded like conflict of interest to me. Perhaps OM can chime in?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[QUOTE=saden1;888587]
In your eyes spitting on someone is worse than characterizing Prophet Mohammed. In a Muslim's eyes, there is nothing worse than poking fun at the prophet and depicting him in a negative stereotype . Right or wrong, the insulted determines what is offensive to them, not the offender. In this case I'm not sure if anyone can claim to be the victim.
[QUOTE]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Not only is spitting on someone worse than dressing up as Zombie Mo in RedskinRat’s eyes but its considered worse by the law of our country’s eyes.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]We value freedom of expression and speech over assault here in ‘Merica. Since you think the Muslim man was justified in his assault on the Atheist do you tolerate Honor Killings by shamed Muslim families? Imagine how horrible it must be to be shamed by your daughter if youre a Muslim family. I mean for Prophet Mo’s sake if a female were to cast shame on her Muslim family obviously the shamed would justify assaulting or killing her right. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]In the Free World violence is only justified in defending our physical selves or others. You should know that. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;888542]The diatribe that the judge gave has very little to do with his ultimate sentence. In fact Judge's can tend to give lengthy spiels when they feel strongly about issues. But, the bottomline is that the judge found that no proof beyond a reasonable doubt existed. If his decision is flawed then you go to the appellate court, and show why. That's how it works.[/quote]

This. Pretty simple.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=RedskinRat;888575]Cool! So when I drive my fist into your Ann Taylor blouse (hypothetically) then I'm attacking your blouse, not you?

Awesome!

P.S. You didn't get the part about what assault comprises, I see?[/quote]

It was a move on a SIGN, not a BLOUSE. Do you see the difference between those two words? It's pretty simple.

And you can crow all that you want about the definition of the word "assault." Since I never mentioned that word, and the defendant was not charged with that, it makes no difference to me or to the story.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

how about this one, they are both wrong. if you want to bash someone's religon do it in private, if we have all learned anything from the past it's that openly offending someones religious beliefs is a bad idea. and at the same time if you claim to be a man of god, regardless what god, how about using some restraint and self control. pretty sure every religon has some form of that wether it be lent, ramadan or whatever.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=mlmdub130;888618]how about this one, they are both wrong. if you want to bash someone's religon do it in private,[/quote]

Is a person's religion practiced purely in private? Why should I be made to only voice my opposition to superstition in private? No.

[quote=mlmdub130;888618]if we have all learned anything from the past it's that openly offending someones religious beliefs is a bad idea.[/quote]

And why is that? Because religious people rarely defend their position with polite discussion, they have to use violence as they know they are wrong. The more 'devout' the more violent.

[quote=mlmdub130;888618] and at the same time if you claim to be a man of god, regardless what god, how about using some restraint and self control. pretty sure every religon has some form of that wether it be lent, ramadan or whatever.[/quote]

Rarely does a religion show restraint unless it's forced to.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=Lotus;888613]It was a move on a SIGN, not a BLOUSE. Do you see the difference between those two words? It's pretty simple.[/quote]

He was wearing a sign and a fake beard that was glued on.

[quote=Lotus;888613]And you can crow all that you want about the definition of the word "assault." Since I never mentioned that word, and the defendant was not charged with that, it makes no difference to me or to the story.[/quote]

Yes, you did, in comment #3, I think, but regardless assault was what happened. That's what the cop said it was, initially.

The definition of '[I]assault[/I]' is what the assailant did. He wasn't '[I]just talking[/I]', he grabbed the Perce. The sign and beard were attached in a similar fashion that your blouse would be attached.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=RedskinRat;888620]Is a person's religion practiced purely in private? Why should I be made to only voice my opposition to superstition in private? No.



And why is that? Because religious people rarely defend their position with polite discussion, they have to use violence as they know they are wrong. The more 'devout' the more violent.



Rarely does a religion show restraint unless it's forced to.[/quote]

[url=http://wso.williams.edu/wiki/index.php/Common_courtesy]Common courtesy - Willipedia[/url]

[url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Common%20Courtesy]Urban Dictionary: Common Courtesy[/url]

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=mlmdub130;888618]how about this one, they are both wrong. if you want to bash someone's religon do it in private, if we have all learned anything from the past it's that openly offending someones religious beliefs is a bad idea. and at the same time [B]if you claim to be a man of god, regardless what god, how about using some restraint and self control[/B]. pretty sure every religon has some form of that wether it be lent, ramadan or whatever.[/quote]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad]Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Re: First Amendment Right
 

This is not a case that was decided on First Amendment grounds right? The judge just said there wasn't enough evidence. That being said, there is a whole lot of understanding the First Amendment fail going on in this thread.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=mlmpetert;888604][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Why do you capitalize Muslim and not Christian? Is there a grammar rule behind that or are you purposely doing it?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Im no lawyer, and i dont think you are, but based off some of what the judge said it sounded like conflict of interest to me. Perhaps OM can chime in?[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

There is no insidious reasoning behind the word Christian not being capitalized. I hope you weren't insulted. I will be sure to to dot my Is and crossing my Ts and capitalize the first letter of anything affiliated with Jesus in the future.


You don't have to be a lawyer to know what conflict of interest is. What exactly is the conflict of interest in this instance?

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=mlmpetert;888610]

[QUOTE=saden1;888587]
In your eyes spitting on someone is worse than characterizing Prophet Mohammed. In a Muslim's eyes, there is nothing worse than poking fun at the prophet and depicting him in a negative stereotype . Right or wrong, the insulted determines what is offensive to them, not the offender. In this case I'm not sure if anyone can claim to be the victim.
[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][B]Not only is spitting on someone worse than dressing up as Zombie Mo in RedskinRat’s eyes but its considered worse by the law of our country’s eyes.[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]



As far as the law is concerned spitting on someone is Civil Battery and a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. The state is highly unlikely to spend money perusing such a case and you're not going to get a penny suing for civil damages.

Now the question is if this guy were to dress up as Mohamed in front of a mosque in Michigan during Eid prayer could he be arrested and charged by local law enforcement for something? Incitement? Disturbing the peace, which is a misdemeanor?

[quote][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]We value freedom of expression and speech over assault here in ‘Merica. Since you think the Muslim man was justified in his assault on the Atheist do you tolerate Honor Killings by shamed Muslim families? Imagine how horrible it must be to be shamed by your daughter if youre a Muslim family. I mean for Prophet Mo’s sake if a female were to cast shame on her Muslim family obviously the shamed would justify assaulting or killing her right. [/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

Over the years I have become lest tolerant of stupid people and hateful people. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You want to make fun of Mohammed? Go right ahead, but if I'm on the jury that decides if the guy who assaulted you walks, he's fcking walking.


[quote][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]In the Free World violence is only justified in defending our physical selves or others. You should know that. [/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]
Violence is justified when it suits us. That is the reality of the world and America/Americans are pretty damn good at it.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

Why do we even worry so much about offending Muslim's and keep making excuses for their actions? I'm tired of hearing about their feelings and the stupid excuses for what they do.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

I'm still not sure why rewarding bad behavior has become [I]'de rigueur' [/I]but I won't be doing it.

Conversely I enjoy being called on my bad behavior. For example: This weekend we were at the Elrod House in Palm Springs, waiting in line for the shuttle bus to load up. The driver says "One seat left, do we have a single?" and this dude steps up, full-on Disco Stu type, hipster clothing at 50 with a very obvious rug, says "I'm single!" to which I reply "Wearing that wig, I'm not surprised".

My wife, who is very polite and civilized, elbowed me and told me to stop being an attention seaker but the others in my party and some people around me found it amusing.

If he'd have said something I'd have apologized, obliquely, and attempted to insult him further, but I am a collossal arse when I'm around crowds of people. I don't generally like people much.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=saden1;888734]As far as the law is concerned spitting on someone is Civil Battery and a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. The state is highly unlikely to spend money perusing such a case and you're not going to get a penny suing for civil damages.

Now the question is if this guy were to dress up as Mohamed in front of a mosque in Michigan during Eid prayer could he be arrested and charged by local law enforcement for something? Incitement? Disturbing the peace, which is a misdemeanor?



Over the years I have become lest tolerant of stupid people and hateful people. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You want to make fun of Mohammed? Go right ahead, but if I'm on the jury that decides if the guy who assaulted you walks, he's fcking walking.



Violence is justified when it suits us. That is the reality of the world and America/Americans are pretty damn good at it.[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Do you have anything to back up your claim that spitting on a person amounts to a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions? And states are "highly unlikely" to pursue charges against people who spit on others? You are just making those things up. Spitting on someone is a serious crime, and can invoke a serious reaction from the victim. You even said yourself that if someone spit on you, you would likely "gun them down". [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Dressing up as Mo during a Eid prayer outside of a mosque in a heavily populated Muslim community is entirely different then dressing up as Mo during a halloween parade. If someone wants to satire Mo by targeting and intentionally seeking out a group of people to incite or inflame then they need to file for a protest permit, otherwise youre right they would be inciting a rioting or disturbing the peace. But they should be allowed to express themselves, regardless of their beliefs. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Newton's thrid law of motion doenst apply to self control. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Unfortunately I have jury duty next week, and you know what ill do if presented with a similar case? Follow the instructions given to me. I certainly wont make up my own justice rules to apply like you would. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Do you personally think people should not be allowed to satire the Prophet Mohamed? Or that if someone does they deserve violence against them?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: First Amendment Right
 

If this was a person crapping on the bible the left would call it art and provide federal funding for the arts.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=mlmpetert;889381][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Do you personally think people should not be allowed to satire the Prophet Mohamed? Or that if someone does they deserve violence against them?[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]



Anything that can't stand up to humor isn't worthy of being revered, but if anyone can think of an exception I'd be interested to hear it.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

So Saden are you saying if I see someone burning the American flag under the law I can kick their ass?

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=firstdown;889431]So Saden are you saying if I see someone burning the American flag under the law I can kick their ass?[/quote]

I don't condone what that muslim guy did and I don't condone what that atheist did either. All I am saying is there is a limit to free speech and for me that limit is crossing the decency threshold. If someone is protesting US policy and uses the burning of the US flag to symbolize their protest, that's okay. If someone is burning the flag at Arlington Memorial on Veterans day, I would hope you would kick their ass.

Ask yourself "which is worse, burning the US flag or burning the Bible and desecrating a statue of Jesus?" The Bible is the word of God and there is nothing higher than that. Not even the flag. If you feel that strongly about the flag though irrespective of the situation at hand, please feel free to kick some ass. Of course, if I am on the jury your threshold of getting away with it will depend on the the circumstance of it.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=mlmpetert;889381][B][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Do you have anything to back up your claim that spitting on a person amounts to a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions? And states are "highly unlikely" to pursue charges against people who spit on others? You are just making those things up. Spitting on someone is a serious crime, and can invoke a serious reaction from the victim. You even said yourself that if someone spit on you, you would likely "gun them down". [/FONT][/COLOR][/B]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Dressing up as Mo during a Eid prayer outside of a mosque in a heavily populated Muslim community is entirely different then dressing up as Mo during a halloween parade. If someone wants to satire Mo by targeting and intentionally seeking out a group of people to incite or inflame then they need to file for a protest permit, otherwise youre right they would be inciting a rioting or disturbing the peace. But they should be allowed to express themselves, regardless of their beliefs. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Newton's thrid law of motion doenst apply to self control. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Unfortunately I have jury duty next week, and you know what ill do if presented with a similar case? Follow the instructions given to me. I certainly wont make up my own justice rules to apply like you would. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Do you personally think people should not be allowed to satire the Prophet Mohamed? Or that if someone does they deserve violence against them?[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

My standard and the state's standards are not the same, I will fck you up...I do have some info to back that up. In the state of VA spitting on someone is [URL="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-11"]1st degree misdemeanor[/URL] but unless you have a record it will be worked down to 3rd degree misdemeanor (no jail time unless you spat on an officer of the law or a state employee). Similarly, in the state of WA it's a 4th degree misdemeanor (equivalent to VA's 1st degree misdemeanor except the max jail time is 90 days) but what you get charged with is based on the assessment of the arresting officer.

These charges are not serious. If you happen to be so unfortunate as to get a hard ass district/state attorney you could face class 1 misdemeanor but then again even a junior attorney can get these charges knocked down.

Yeah, no serves jail time for spitting...that's common knowledge. State prosecution funds and jails are reserved for more serious crimes and spitting aint one of them.

Re: First Amendment Right
 

[quote=saden1;888588]Conflict of interest? So what you're saying is you can't be a christian judge and rule on a matter between a christian and a Muslim due to conflict of interest?

Do you understand what conflict of interest means?[/quote]


Yes, I do know what conflict of interest means and your point is valid in regards to your example. What is evident is that he allowed his bias to dismiss this case.