First Amendment Right

RedskinRat · 02-24-2012, 12:15 PM

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:

Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then …

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.
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.”

Serious comments, please.

Lotus · 02-24-2012, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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:

Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then …

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.
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.”

Serious comments, please.

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.

RedskinRat · 02-24-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

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.

ABC 27 covers the story of the zombie Mohammed...

Lotus · 02-24-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

ABC 27 covers the story of the zombie Mohammed court case - YouTube

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.

RedskinRat · 02-24-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

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:

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

Lotus · 02-24-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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:

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

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

Hog1 · 02-24-2012, 12:38 PM

Muslim judge?

RedskinRat · 02-24-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

Muslim judge?

You're spoiling the surprise!

RedskinRat · 02-24-2012, 01:35 PM

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

Jonathan Turley

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.

saden1 · 02-24-2012, 02:16 PM

Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are limits to free speech. 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?

RedskinRat · 02-24-2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are limits to free speech.

Doesn't cover what Mr. Perce was doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

If this dummy were to get gunned down the assailant would get no more than a second degree murder charge.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

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

saden1 · 02-24-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Doesn't cover what Mr. Perce was doing.

You can't be serious.

Quote:

Why?

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.

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.

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

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.

RedskinRat · 02-24-2012, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

You can't be serious.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

See the previous response and get a better grasp on the limitations of free speech.

Did. See my comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

It's easier to blame judge than then the doofus in front of them.

The judge is at fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

It need no explanation. Drop blood into shark invested waters and you're bound to get a few feeders.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

It is the nature of things and your job is to mitigate potential problems and pick your battles.

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:

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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?

RedskinRat · 02-24-2012, 03:00 PM

Most recent Supreme Court decision regarding 'Hate Speech'.

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.

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

CRedskinsRule · 02-24-2012, 04:06 PM

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.

02-24-2012, 12:15 PM	#1
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	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: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then … 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. 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.” Serious comments, please.

02-24-2012, 12:38 PM	#7
Hog1 Quietly Dominating the East Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 10,675	Re: First Amendment Right Muslim judge? __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... *“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs*

02-24-2012, 01:35 PM	#9
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	Re: First Amendment Right Oh, and Jonathan Turley gives a good overview on his blog: Jonathan Turley 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.

02-24-2012, 02:16 PM	#10
saden1 MVP Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Seattle Age: 45 Posts: 10,069	Re: First Amendment Right Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are limits to free speech. 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? __________________ "The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder." -Jenkins Last edited by saden1; 02-24-2012 at 02:21 PM.

02-24-2012, 03:00 PM	#14
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	Re: First Amendment Right Most recent Supreme Court decision regarding 'Hate Speech'. 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. Ah, religion, how I detest it and the excuse it gives people to behave like thugs.

02-24-2012, 04:06 PM	#15
CRedskinsRule Living Legend Join Date: Aug 2008 Age: 57 Posts: 21,451	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.

First Amendment Right

Debating with the enemy