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 … (http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-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.

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 … (http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-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.

Muslim judge?

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 court case - YouTube

Muslim judge?

You're spoiling the surprise!

:(

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

Jonathan Turley (http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/)

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.

Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are limits to free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Categorical _exclusions). 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?

Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are limits to free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Categorical _exclusions).

Doesn't cover what Mr. Perce was doing.

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?

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.

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

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE)

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.

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.