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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://wso.williams.edu/wiki/index.php/Common_courtesy)

Urban Dictionary: Common Courtesy (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Common%20Courtesy)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)

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.

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?