First Amendment Right

[RedskinRat]

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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

Did. See my comment.

Originally Posted by saden1

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

The judge is at fault.

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?

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.

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?

[NC_Skins]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

Did. See my comment.

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.

"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"

The judge is at fault.

It's always someone else's fault.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

At what point did common decency become so unfashionable?

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?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

Why do you capitalize Muslim and not Christian? Is there a grammar rule behind that or are you purposely doing it?

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?

[mlmpetert]

[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]

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.

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.

In the Free World violence is only justified in defending our physical selves or others. You should know that.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

This. Pretty simple.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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?

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.

[mlmdub130]

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

how about this one, they are both wrong. if you want to bash someone's religon do it in private,

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

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

if we have all learned anything from the past it's that openly offending someones religious beliefs is a bad idea.

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.

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

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.

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

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

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

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

Common courtesy - Willipedia

Urban Dictionary: Common Courtesy

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

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.

Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[djnemo65]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Why do you capitalize Muslim and not Christian? Is there a grammar rule behind that or are you purposely doing it?

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?

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?