First Amendment Right

[mlmpetert]

I think you’ve completely missed what I was trying to say.

I absolutely do not believe religion or belief of any kind should be off limits to ridicule or scrutiny. Rather i just think its sad that people find purpose in insulting and mocking the beliefs of others. However, what I find even more unfortunate is the selective scrutiny and extremist sympathizing many of us seem to display.

I was trying to ask why are most of us okay with the NY Times allowing attacks on Catholics but not Muslims? Why is selective discrimination allowed on a variety of fronts? Im not all that outraged by the NY Times and I don’t think anyone else here is either, but shouldn’t we be? Should we care that Muslims are treated differently because people are worried about what some of them they might do?

You started a thread about a Muslim getting off for assaulting an atheist for dressing up as the Prophet Mo, and titled it First Amendment Right. To me that came across as why is offensive speech seemingly not allowed for some things but okay for others, particularly in regards to different ideologies or a nuance outside the word ideology. Whats your reason behind this thread? What do you find interesting in regards to the First Amendment and this case? Prior to knowing more about the case, why did you find the judge’s decision horrendously inept?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I was trying to ask why are most of us okay with the NY Times allowing attacks on Catholics but not Muslims?

I'm certainly not but I don't like the NYT in the first place.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Why is selective discrimination allowed on a variety of fronts? Im not all that outraged by the NY Times and I don’t think anyone else here is either, but shouldn’t we be?

Which discrimination are you referencing? It's a bigoted newspaper, it's not a surprise.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Should we care that Muslims are treated differently because people are worried about what some of them they might do?

Absolutely, as the judge mentioned The atheist would have been killed in the Middle East for his beliefs.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

You started a thread about a Muslim getting off for assaulting an atheist for dressing up as the Prophet Mo, and titled it First Amendment Right. To me that came across as why is offensive speech seemingly not allowed for some things but okay for others, particularly in regards to different ideologies or a nuance outside the word ideology. Whats your reason behind this thread? What do you find interesting in regards to the First Amendment and this case?

Primarily my post was to gauge whether people even care about the erosion of rights under this administration. Certainly there appears to be an incredibly out of proportion application of 'kid-glovery' regarding a very tiny but extremely vocal minority.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Prior to knowing more about the case, why did you find the judge’s decision horrendously inept?

He decided that a police officers sworn testimony wasn't relevant ( I read the court transcripts early on so I'm not sure what you mean by 'prior') despite the fact that the defendant admitted to assaulting the victim.

The judge seemed, from everything I've read, to allow his experience in the Middle East to allow a sliding scale of justice here instead of correctly applying the the law for assault.

I appreciate your response, thanks.