First Amendment Right

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.

Doesn't cover what Mr. Perce was doing.

You can't be serious.



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



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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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

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?

You can't be serious.

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

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

Did. See my comment.

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

The judge is at fault.


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?


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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?