That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 14 of 21

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

To me, being intentionally provocative isn’t important. Lots of speech IS intentionally provocative. The pecking order of hate isn’t important, either. The conspiracy of propaganda isn’t important. All the ancillary nonsense isn’t important.

This is what’s important: A guy was grievously and publicly insulting of a religious figure.

Some people seem to think it’s okay to accost him for it. Perhaps even expected.

If that's suppose to be a summary of my POV then it's a complete mischaracterization of it. Remember, I'm in doubt as to whether he was assaulted - "harassment" was the original charge, that seems to be in line with what SignyM said the F-Fathers used the 1st Amendment for, to piss off/harass the British. Details are still unfolding, and the sources are still to be questioned.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Others don’t feel this way.

Those of us who don’t feel this way are called Zealots who can’t distinguish between shades of gray, being manipulated by various insidious forces.

I think this country - in large part fueled by the speed and trust we put in questionable Internet sources - suffers from a rush to judgement sometimes. I did that with a Sarah Palin cover photo, misinterpreting the reasons behind it. It's not hard to do. I hope you don't let your passion for Free Speech make you over look the Truth.

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

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:04 PM

Quote:
I hope you don't let your passion for Free Speech make you over look the Truth.

Hello,

I am able to adjust to facts as they develop. I think we all make the best decisions we can with the information available to us. In the case of the Iraq war, I was able to shift my position once it was apparent that all of the relevant facts had been misrepresented, and it was obvious our presence was an abomination to the country.

Some facts are not relevant to this case. For instance, it does not matter if the 'speaker' was being provocative. It does not matter if he was a jerk. It does not matter if this is a potential 'win' for various groups of jerks who might use this to champion their jerk cause.

Some facts are only relevant to the disposition of the judge. Did he suppress evidence pertinent to the case? Did he make a bad ruling? Or was there a legal misstep elsewhere in the process?

A very few facts are relevant to there having been a violation of rights. Did someone accost the speaker? That's the beginning and end of the most pertinent question.

With the information at hand, it seems almost certain that someone accosted the speaker. If it turns out this did not happen, I will amend my position.

But YOUR position has been that being a jerk and making jerk-ass provocative demonstrations isn't even supposed to be part of the free speech protections.

And there is nothing about this case that will change that fact but your own opinion, because that most shocking fact was provided by your self. In your stated opinion, making intentionally provocative speech should have no protection, and the 'speaker' got what he was looking for.

Those of us who don't agree are Zealots who can not distinguish nuance (shades of gray.)

I don't think that's a misrepresentation. I got that from reading your actual words.

I do think it's lamentable.

But you would not be the first otherwise reasonable human being who has shocked me with what I consider to be an unsupportable point of view. Obviously my own position strikes you the same way.

--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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
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

Turns out he's not a Muslim. Judges who are Christian can't judge Christians?

Yes, but if you were say, a judge who was a practicing lutheran and a lutheran accused of assaulting a buddhist who was expressing a lutheran-negative message at the time, that would be grounds to recuse yourself.

Oh, and regarding your assetion that judge Mark Martin isn't a muslim?
From the court transcript, emphasis mine:

Quote:

...Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.

Quote:

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

He did not - he was able to speak and carry his sign. At least you would have a hard time proving anything beyond Harassment.

Ample evidence that the defendant charged him and knocked him to the ground. The video was thrown out and the witnesses and the arresting officer were not allowed to testify. How did anyone get a chance to prove anything? Total miscarriage of justice.

And this same parade featured a zombie pope. All those catholics that went after the zombie pope should get their day in court... Oh yeah, THAT NEVER HAPPENED!

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I am able to adjust to facts as they develop. I think we all make the best decisions we can with the information available to us. In the case of the Iraq war, I was able to shift my position once it was apparent that all of the relevant facts had been misrepresented, and it was obvious our presence was an abomination to the country.

Some facts are not relevant to this case. For instance, it does not matter if the 'speaker' was being provocative. It does not matter if he was a jerk. It does not matter if this is a potential 'win' for various groups of jerks who might use this to champion their jerk cause.

Some facts are only relevant to the disposition of the judge. Did he suppress evidence pertinent to the case? Did he make a bad ruling? Or was there a legal misstep elsewhere in the process?

A very few facts are relevant to there having been a violation of rights. Did someone accost the speaker? That's the beginning and end of the most pertinent question.

I agree with this for the most part. If it turns out that he can be tried and convicted of assault as it is written into PA law, then I'd have to conclude that that was fair. I don't share your opinion these criteria have been met yet from what we know from Internet sources.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
With the information at hand, it seems almost certain that someone accosted the speaker. If it turns out this did not happen, I will amend my position.

Thankfully, court decisions are not based on Internet factoids delivered by questionable sources.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But YOUR position has been that being a jerk and making jerk-ass provocative demonstrations isn't even supposed to be part of the free speech protections.

And there is nothing about this case that will change that fact but your own opinion, because that most shocking fact was provided by your self. In your stated opinion, making intentionally provocative speech should have no protection, and the 'speaker' got what he was looking for.

Those are 2 separate items. I never said Free Speech should not be protected - that's the misrepresentation that you and others have made. I did say he was being provocative and got what he was probably looking for. I get the feeling - and this is why I sort of called you a Zealot, (I think I just lumped you in with Zealots, another thread

) that you wanted me to say "Provocative speech should not be protected," so you could tee off and go all Patrick Henry on me.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Those of us who don't agree are Zealots who can not distinguish nuance (shades of gray.)

I don't think that's a misrepresentation. I got that from reading your actual words.

I do think it's lamentable.

But you would not be the first otherwise reasonable human being who has shocked me with what I consider to be an unsupportable point of view. Obviously my own position strikes you the same way.

Zealots of any color are dangerous imho (unless they're artists), they are Believers in every negative sense that Whedon was describing, often blinded by their rigid beliefs, there's no room for compromise or consideration - they think their extreme position is the only position and they usually seem to find their opposing, opposite Zealot and do battle - sounds like Congress doesn't it? I do find it lamentable that someone of your obvious brain power holds such a tight, narrow view, that you consider this case to have the same gravity as marching in Selma. Perspective, context, measured resolution.

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

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:28 PM

Hello Mr. Troll,

I do not think a person must necessarily remove themselves from a case due to sharing a religion with one of the accused.

They are only required to do this if they feel their passion for the religion might make them unable to pursue justice fairly.

In this same way, a woman can preside over a rape case involving a woman, and a man can preside over a rape case involving a man. Only if they have strong unbalancing personal opinions should they feel the need to remove themselves.

Whether this judge had strong, unbalancing personal opinions is still under debate, but based on the current information I think it bears looking into. I consider lecturing the victim in this case to be functionally equivalent to lecturing the victim of a rape by telling her she was dressing too provocatively. What did she think was going to happen?

--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

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:33 PM

Quote:
"Provocative speech should not be protected," so you could tee off and go all Patrick Henry on me

Hello,

You did say that free speech protections were not created so you could piss people off. Which is a position so similar that I find it difficult to find a distinguishing characteristic.

Quote:
I do find it lamentable that someone of your obvious brain power holds such a tight, narrow view, that you consider this case to have the same gravity as marching in Selma. Perspective, context, measured resolution.

The only difference between this case, and an identical case involving some civil rights protester is that you may like the civil rights protester and their position but don't like the jerk and his position.

You call me a zealot for not seeing a difference where there is no difference. The two cases are functionally identical. They need equal protection.

--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

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Mr. Troll,

I do not think a person must necessarily remove themselves from a case due to sharing a religion with one of the accused.

They are only required to do this if they feel their passion for the religion might make them unable to pursue justice fairly.

In this same way, a woman can preside over a rape case involving a woman, and a man can preside over a rape case involving a man. Only if they have strong unbalancing personal opinions should they feel the need to remove themselves.

Whether this judge had strong, unbalancing personal opinions is still under debate, but based on the current information I think it bears looking into. I consider lecturing the victim in this case to be functionally equivalent to lecturing the victim of a rape by telling her she was dressing too provocatively. What did she think was going to happen?

Your compare-o-meter is also busted. Did you watch the guy's own video? Did you hear the Muslim say he wanted to call a cop FIRST because of the sign? You somehow equate that confrontation to rape? Incredible.

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

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:44 PM

Quote:

Your compare-o-meter is also busted. Did you watch the guy's own video? Did you hear the Muslim say he wanted to call a cop FIRST because of the sign? You somehow equate that confrontation to rape? Incredible.

Hello,

No, Pizmo. I did not compare the confrontations. I compared the lectures. I compared lecturing a victim of one crime to lecturing a victim of another crime.

Do you feel the scale of the crime reaches a point where it's okay to lecture victims? Do you feel that telling the victim that they were being too provocative becomes okay at some point? That there is a line where a victim should expect to have their rights violated?

In short, does it matter whether he was lecturing a rape victim or a victim whose free speech rights were infringed? Why? Because one crime is terrible and one crime isn't? Because you sympathize with one victim more than another?

Is there any point at which it's okay? And if so, why? What relevancy makes it suddenly okay?

--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

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
"Provocative speech should not be protected," so you could tee off and go all Patrick Henry on me

Hello,

You did say that free speech protections were not created so you could piss people off. Which is a position so similar that I find it difficult to find a distinguishing characteristic.

I said I agreed with the judge when he said he didn't think the F-Fathers created the first Amendment for that purpose. I agree with that.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
I do find it lamentable that someone of your obvious brain power holds such a tight, narrow view, that you consider this case to have the same gravity as marching in Selma. Perspective, context, measured resolution.

The only difference between this case, and an identical case involving some civil rights protester is that you may like the civil rights protester and their position but don't like the jerk and his position.

You call me a zealot for not seeing a difference where there is no difference. The two cases are functionally identical. They need equal protection.

"The First (of 3) Marches: "Bloody Sunday"
On March 7, 1965, an estimated 525 to 600 civil rights marchers headed east out of Selma on U.S. Highway 80. The march was led by John Lewis of SNCC and the Reverend Hosea Williams of SCLC, followed by Bob Mants of SNCC and Albert Turner of SCLC. The protest went smoothly until the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and found a wall of state troopers waiting for them on the other side. Sheriff Jim Clark had issued an order for all white males in Dallas County over the age of twenty-one to report to the courthouse that morning to be deputized. Commanding officer John Cloud told the demonstrators to disband at once and go home. Williams tried to speak to the officer, but Cloud curtly informed him there was nothing to discuss. Seconds later, the troopers began shoving the demonstrators. Many were knocked to the ground and beaten with nightsticks. Another detachment of troopers fired tear gas. Mounted troopers charged the crowd on horseback.[9]
Televised images of the brutal attack presented people with horrifying images of marchers left bloodied and severely injured, and roused support for the U.S. civil rights movement. Amelia Boynton was beaten and gassed nearly to death; her photo appeared on the front page of newspapers and news magazines around the world.[10] Seventeen marchers were hospitalized, and the day was nicknamed "Bloody Sunday"."

Someone tried to pull a poster off this guy - they don't compare. If you're going to say they are functionally the same then I think you are being purposely obtuse and a bit disingenuous.

Here's my proposal: create a new category to address smaller instances like this one. Attempted Obstruction of Free Speech Misdemeanor - the act of attempting to deny another citizen (? or does that cause a problem?) from expressing their opinion in public. I'm not sure how the FTC would handle that, but that's my first pass at a solution that I think has more proportion to this specific case.

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

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

Your compare-o-meter is also busted. Did you watch the guy's own video? Did you hear the Muslim say he wanted to call a cop FIRST because of the sign? You somehow equate that confrontation to rape? Incredible.

Hello,

No, Pizmo. I did not compare the confrontations. I compared the lectures. I compared lecturing a victim of one crime to lecturing a victim of another crime.

Do you feel the scale of the crime reaches a point where it's okay to lecture victims? Do you feel that telling the victim that they were being too provocative becomes okay at some point? That there is a line where a victim should expect to have their rights violated?

In short, does it matter whether he was lecturing a rape victim or a victim whose free speech rights were infringed? Why? Because one crime is terrible and one crime isn't? Because you sympathize with one victim more than another?

Is there any point at which it's okay? And if so, why? What relevancy makes it suddenly okay?

I think lecturing a rape victim is heinous and beyond insensitive.
I think judges make these kinds of post finding statements for these kinds of cases on a regular basis, to let those in attendance and the parties involved understand their findings. I can't imagine a court where they just proclaim a decision and make no further comment.
So I think trying to educate this dude was well within a judges sop. You and the atheists and Christian Fundies can call it a lecture, I call it trying impart wisdom so it's less likely to happen again.

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

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE