First Amendment Right

[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?

[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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

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.

As far as the law is concerned spitting on someone is Civil Battery and a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. The state is highly unlikely to spend money perusing such a case and you're not going to get a penny suing for civil damages.

Now the question is if this guy were to dress up as Mohamed in front of a mosque in Michigan during Eid prayer could he be arrested and charged by local law enforcement for something? Incitement? Disturbing the peace, which is a misdemeanor?

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.

Over the years I have become lest tolerant of stupid people and hateful people. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You want to make fun of Mohammed? Go right ahead, but if I'm on the jury that decides if the guy who assaulted you walks, he's fcking walking.

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

Violence is justified when it suits us. That is the reality of the world and America/Americans are pretty damn good at it.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

As far as the law is concerned spitting on someone is Civil Battery and a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. The state is highly unlikely to spend money perusing such a case and you're not going to get a penny suing for civil damages.

Now the question is if this guy were to dress up as Mohamed in front of a mosque in Michigan during Eid prayer could he be arrested and charged by local law enforcement for something? Incitement? Disturbing the peace, which is a misdemeanor?



Over the years I have become lest tolerant of stupid people and hateful people. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You want to make fun of Mohammed? Go right ahead, but if I'm on the jury that decides if the guy who assaulted you walks, he's fcking walking.



Violence is justified when it suits us. That is the reality of the world and America/Americans are pretty damn good at it.

Do you have anything to back up your claim that spitting on a person amounts to a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions? And states are "highly unlikely" to pursue charges against people who spit on others? You are just making those things up. Spitting on someone is a serious crime, and can invoke a serious reaction from the victim. You even said yourself that if someone spit on you, you would likely "gun them down".

Dressing up as Mo during a Eid prayer outside of a mosque in a heavily populated Muslim community is entirely different then dressing up as Mo during a halloween parade. If someone wants to satire Mo by targeting and intentionally seeking out a group of people to incite or inflame then they need to file for a protest permit, otherwise youre right they would be inciting a rioting or disturbing the peace. But they should be allowed to express themselves, regardless of their beliefs.

Newton's thrid law of motion doenst apply to self control.

Unfortunately I have jury duty next week, and you know what ill do if presented with a similar case? Follow the instructions given to me. I certainly wont make up my own justice rules to apply like you would.

Do you personally think people should not be allowed to satire the Prophet Mohamed? Or that if someone does they deserve violence against them?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Do you personally think people should not be allowed to satire the Prophet Mohamed? Or that if someone does they deserve violence against them?

Anything that can't stand up to humor isn't worthy of being revered, but if anyone can think of an exception I'd be interested to hear it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Do you have anything to back up your claim that spitting on a person amounts to a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions? And states are "highly unlikely" to pursue charges against people who spit on others? You are just making those things up. Spitting on someone is a serious crime, and can invoke a serious reaction from the victim. You even said yourself that if someone spit on you, you would likely "gun them down".

Dressing up as Mo during a Eid prayer outside of a mosque in a heavily populated Muslim community is entirely different then dressing up as Mo during a halloween parade. If someone wants to satire Mo by targeting and intentionally seeking out a group of people to incite or inflame then they need to file for a protest permit, otherwise youre right they would be inciting a rioting or disturbing the peace. But they should be allowed to express themselves, regardless of their beliefs.

Newton's thrid law of motion doenst apply to self control.

Unfortunately I have jury duty next week, and you know what ill do if presented with a similar case? Follow the instructions given to me. I certainly wont make up my own justice rules to apply like you would.

Do you personally think people should not be allowed to satire the Prophet Mohamed? Or that if someone does they deserve violence against them?

My standard and the state's standards are not the same, I will fck you up...I do have some info to back that up. In the state of VA spitting on someone is 1st degree misdemeanor but unless you have a record it will be worked down to 3rd degree misdemeanor (no jail time unless you spat on an officer of the law or a state employee). Similarly, in the state of WA it's a 4th degree misdemeanor (equivalent to VA's 1st degree misdemeanor except the max jail time is 90 days) but what you get charged with is based on the assessment of the arresting officer.

These charges are not serious. If you happen to be so unfortunate as to get a hard ass district/state attorney you could face class 1 misdemeanor but then again even a junior attorney can get these charges knocked down.

Yeah, no serves jail time for spitting...that's common knowledge. State prosecution funds and jails are reserved for more serious crimes and spitting aint one of them.