That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 10 of 21

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, February 27, 2012 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Free Speech Advocates/Zealots

Hello,

Zealots, eh?

We Zealots defend Free Speech always, even when it is unpopular or may aid an unpopular group. Even if it is a group we despise.

Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong, like in this case. When they can't entertain the idea of thinking beyond black and white - the world has a multitude of gray shades.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

ANTHONYT

Monday, February 27, 2012 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Free Speech Advocates/Zealots

Hello,

Zealots, eh?

We Zealots defend Free Speech always, even when it is unpopular or may aid an unpopular group. Even if it is a group we despise.

Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong, like in this case. When they can't entertain the idea of thinking beyond black and white - the world has a multitude of gray shades.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

Quote:
Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong

Hello,

I do apologize for getting the facts of the case wrong, (apparently in regards to someone choosing the wrong charge for the crime that occurred) but the defense of Free Speech is itself correct and untarnished. Nothing I said in defense of Free Speech or this Speaker is incorrect. Nothing I said in condemnation of the man who would accost the Speaker is incorrect. And I still stand by dismay that an administrator of the law would lecture a victim whose rights were violated.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

SIGNYM

Monday, February 27, 2012 6:00 PM

PIZMO, I realize that definitions of "harassment", "assault" and "battery" vary from state to state. I personally like the CA definition better, but I realize that one cannot apply CA law in PA! But TOUCHING anyone in a threatening or unwelcome manner in ANY state should be a punishable crime. After disallowing a video of the event from evidence (why?) the judge decided that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the charge. Weren't there witnesses? Didn't the arresting sheriff make a statement? Didn't the alleged attacker admit at the scene as to what he had done? Seems like evidence was dismissed out of hand. And then the judge lectured the victim? On what grounds? That lecture virtually admits to an altercation in order to excuse it. The weigh scales of justice seemed to have a very heavy thumb on one side. Also, what the judge said:

Quote:
"Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did."

The first amendment was used by our FF to protect the rights of the colonists to piss off the British.

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, February 27, 2012 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Free Speech Advocates/Zealots

Hello,

Zealots, eh?

We Zealots defend Free Speech always, even when it is unpopular or may aid an unpopular group. Even if it is a group we despise.

Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong, like in this case. When they can't entertain the idea of thinking beyond black and white - the world has a multitude of gray shades.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

Quote:
Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong

Hello,

I do apologize for getting the facts of the case wrong, (apparently in regards to someone choosing the wrong charge for the crime that occurred) but the defense of Free Speech is itself correct and untarnished. Nothing I said in defense of Free Speech or this Speaker is incorrect. Nothing I said in condemnation of the man who would accost the Speaker is incorrect. And I still stand by dismay that an administrator of the law would lecture a victim whose rights were violated.

I think there's free speech and then there's Free Speech, it's not one size fits all. If this was a Gov trying to stifle anti-government opinion/text then I'd share the level of concern that you have. This is on the other end of the spectrum, I think it's wrong to lump them together.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

SIGNYM

Monday, February 27, 2012 8:05 PM

This concept of free speech has been decided many times over to protect things like parody and (yes) even offensive speech. There are a few limitations on free speech: defamation or libel, causing harm (yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater), hate speech, or (alas) violating copyrights. Everything else is Free Speech.

Muslims need to realize that the entire USA is a free speech zone, and the judge needs to be reviewed because he seems not to understand where he lives and whose law he is interpreting. Also, he overstepped his bounds when he tossed out evidence willy-nilly without (as far as I can tell) good reason. There were witnesses and police statements which were ignored.

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, February 27, 2012 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
PIZMO, I realize that definitions of "harassment", "assault" and "battery" vary from state to state. I personally like the CA definition better, but I realize that one cannot apply CA law in PA! But TOUCHING anyone in a threatening or unwelcome manner in ANY state should be a punishable crime. After disallowing a video of the event from evidence (why?) the judge decided that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the charge. Weren't there witnesses? Didn't the arresting sheriff make a statement? Didn't the alleged attacker admit at the scene as to what he had done? Seems like evidence was dismissed out of hand. And then the judge lectured the victim? On what grounds? That lecture virtually admits to an altercation in order to excuse it. The weigh scales of justice seemed to have a very heavy thumb on one side. Also, what the judge said:

Quote:
"Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did."
The first amendment was used by our FF to protect the rights of the colonists to piss off the British.

That time is passed then, right?

If you watch the video I think you'll see there's nothing there, not anything to prosecute someone with:

There's voice over (which could be added), there's no image of a guy choking or even touching the filmmaker - pretty flimsy, if anything wouldn't it make you suspicious of the atheist? I think the judge thought the atheist was trying to incite unrest and conflict and he was pretty perturbed by that, so much so that he called him a doofus.

This would have been great - if the muslim guy had instead dressed like George Washington with a machine gun and he had his muslim friends dressed like babies in American flags, and he was mock shooting them and laughing and saying how the Muslim Revolution was coming, "I am Muhammed Washington, here to slaughter your babies!" Would anyone be surprised if the crowd would have done something about that? Sometimes you have to protect people from their idiot selves.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

ANTHONYT

Monday, February 27, 2012 8:06 PM

Quote:

I think there's free speech and then there's Free Speech, it's not one size fits all. If this was a Gov trying to stifle anti-government opinion/text then I'd share the level of concern that you have. This is on the other end of the spectrum, I think it's wrong to lump them together.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

Hello,

I understand your position, and you have the right to it, but I disagree. I do not limit free speech to anti-government speech. I believe the protections are far broader, and indeed that they must be. I believe such protections, broad and wide, are essential to the maintenance of a free society. While it is a bitter brew to swallow to hear someone say, or watch someone depict a hateful, hurtful thing- I believe that all speech is safe only when the worst speech is protected. The exceptions I make to this rule of thumb are strikingly narrow, limited to direct and plausible threats of harm.

If in my zealotry, I offend, please forgive me. I shall similarly strive to forgive those whose zeal is so tepid and tame that they would erode what I consider a vital tenet of freedom. I do not believe the position to be borne of evil, though it startled me to hear it.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

CAVETROLL

Monday, February 27, 2012 8:11 PM

1) Muslim judge in a case involving depiction of Mohammed. Instant grounds for recusing himself or facing charges of judicial misconduct.

Here's an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

2) Clear cut assault. But let's call it harassment.

3) The complaintant has had his first amendment rights violated by the original assaulter, and now by the judge.

4) The public will wind up footing the bill when the lawsuit comes. I can only hope the judge is named as a defendant in the case as well, so he can feel the pain in the wallet along with the public. Because the public clearly has no leg to stand on.

I'd be willing to be the lawyers are already lining up. I wonder where the ACLU is?

SIGNYM

Monday, February 27, 2012 8:13 PM

Quote:
That time is passed then, right?

NO, that time is still here. It is enshrined in our constitution.

Quote:
If you watch the video I think you'll see there's nothing there, not anything to prosecute someone with

There is more than just the video. There is also the statement by the victim and by the police officer who SAID that the alleged perp admitted on the spot that he grabbed the victim. And the street was lined with witnesses who surely could have been interviewed. Seems like the judge went out of his way to dismiss the case... unfairly, according to all of the facts that I've read.

Possibly the judge wanted to avoid a backlash. In other words, his decision might have been based on fear.

-----------------

HERE is how you handle a demonstration you don't like: You get the peeps who agree with you to hold a counter-demonstration. For instance, there was a planned Nazi demonstration in my hometown of Buffalo. Police were gathered to protect the demonstrators, nerves were on edge. When it came time, there were about five Nazi demonstrators and about 200 counter-demonstrators. They managed not to beat each other up, but the point was made.

In a civilized society, we use words, not fists. Best stick with that.

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, February 27, 2012 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I understand your position, and you have the right to it, but I disagree. I do not limit free speech to anti-government speech. I believe the protections are far broader, and indeed that they must be. I believe such protections, broad and wide, are essential to the maintenance of a free society. While it is a bitter brew to swallow to hear someone say, or watch someone depict a hateful, hurtful thing- I believe that all speech is safe only when the worst speech is protected. The exceptions I make to this rule of thumb are strikingly narrow, limited to direct and plausible threats of harm.

If in my zealotry, I offend, please forgive me. I shall similarly strive to forgive those whose zeal is so tepid and tame that they would erode what I consider a vital tenet of freedom. I do not believe the position to be borne of evil, though it startled me to hear it.

I think your sense of proportion is way out of whack. My "zeal" is measured in accordance with the issue, I don't always go from 0 to 11 for every little bump. And I will forgive intelligent people when they over react and try to cover it up with pretty, lofty words.

I don't limit free speech to government abuse either, just used as one example.

"The exceptions I make to this rule of thumb are strikingly narrow, limited to direct and plausible threats of harm."
You don't believe this Zombie action had a chance to lead to harm? Given the Muhammed cartoon nonsense?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE