That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 15 of 21
Quote:
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.
Hello,
So, you agree that free speech protections weren't intended to protect against pissing people off? But you feel they should be applied that way anyway? I missed the second part in your initial statement.
Quote:
Someone tried to pull a poster off this guy - they don't compare.
Because of severity? Because someone was bleeding in case A and not case B? Because the cops did it? Because rights were not being infringed in both cases?
Quote:
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 think your proposed law may need some work, and I'm actually opposed to creating new laws when existing ones will do the job. I'm pretty sure there's a law against grabbing other people or their carried possessions without permission.
If no one lays a hand on anyone else, that's good enough for me. Whether it be grabbing their sign, grabbing their body, or grabbing their ass.
--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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I call it trying impart wisdom so it's less likely to happen again.
Hello,
Which has nothing to do with explaining a ruling, and is in fact a lecture.
--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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
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.
Hello,
So, you agree that free speech protections weren't intended to protect against pissing people off? But you feel they should be applied that way anyway? I missed the second part in your initial statement.
No, 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:
Someone tried to pull a poster off this guy - they don't compare.
Because of severity? Because someone was bleeding in case A and not case B? Because the cops did it? Because rights were not being infringed in both cases?
Severity of course - attempted murder should not treated the same as harassment - do you think otherwise?
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I think your proposed law may need some work, and I'm actually opposed to creating new laws when existing ones will do the job. I'm pretty sure there's a law against grabbing other people or their carried possessions without permission.
If no one lays a hand on anyone else, that's good enough for me. Whether it be grabbing their sign, grabbing their body, or grabbing their ass.
I think it needs work too. I think the judge in this case considered the proof available and what was and wasn't grabbed and ruled accordingly. I think he showed an amazing amount of courage, even though at the time it just seemed like simple common sense.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Severity of course - attempted murder should not treated the same as harassment - do you think otherwise?
Hello,
It depends on what you mean by 'same.' If you mean, "Should they have the same punishment" then the answer is obviously no. If you mean, "Should they still be treated as crimes" then the answer is yes. If indeed grabbing people or their stuff is harassment. There's some disagreement on that point. But it's definitely a crime.
Both are crimes and wrong and deserve to be addressed, just as lecturing the victim of a crime is wrong and deserves to be addressed.
You often accuse me of making false equivalencies, but I feel I am making appropriate equivalencies. In other words, I am not dismissing an inappropriate act simply because there are worse inappropriate acts. They are both wrong. I am not dismissing a crime because the victim was a jerk, either.
On the topic of free speech protections, let's talk about what you believe, and not the founding fathers. Do you think provocative asshole speech that enrages a target audience should be protected?
--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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
On the topic of free speech protections, let's talk about what you believe, and not the founding fathers. Do you think provocative asshole speech that enrages a target audience should be protected?
Wait for it.... absolutely Nes, I mean Yo! Turns out this is not a yes or no question, and greater brains than mine have worked this one over for ages, including some pretty big brains on this forum. The "can't yell fire in a crowded theater," yeah, there are definitely circumstances that should be considered, have to be considered by law. I really don't know what the answer is, as you mentioned my first pass needed work. Essentially, I don't think one size fits all, you might say I feel zealous about that opinion.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Well, you're honest. That's a good character trait.
--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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
Anthony,
In the section of court transcript I appended in my reply to Pizmo, judge Martin said; "...I'm a Muslim. I'm offended..." He admitted, in his own words, that he is emotionally involved in the case. Removing any pretense of non-involvement and rendering him defenseless against a charge of judicial misconduct.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll: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!
Sorry CT, I missed this earlier - I was trying to keep up with Anthony's running comments and it must have whizzed by.
If you have direct court document links I'd like to see them - when I said he wasn't a muslim I got it from:
http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/muslim-attacks-atheist-muslim-judg
e-dismisses-case-blames-victim
"The premise of post that prompted this thread is that the judge (magistrate) is a Muslim and is biasing his judgment to benefit another Muslim. The only “proof” that he is a Muslim is that in listening to the audio, many of us believe he says he is a Muslim.
A conservative blogger, not me, who had originally assumed the same and posted as such, Andrew C. McCarthy, checked it carefully and concluded that he apparently did not say he is a Muslim. According to Wikipedia, “Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others."
I have not read anything (that I trust at least) about "witnesses" not being allowed to testify. The iphone video is inconclusive at best - if there's a time stamp you can refer me to that has evidence of something more than harassment I'm all eyes.
I'm not a Muslim excuser or Liberal do-gooder, I'm more disappointed in this knuckle headed atheist - like, "Really? Your point is?" I think instigators should share some responsibility for the fallout from their actions.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/the-sharia-court-of-pennsylva
nia-the-transcript/
Having a point isn't the issue. Having freedom to make that point, free from having a crime committed against you, is. There are lots of ways the muslim could have objected peacefully, but he didn't. Judge Martin seems to be confused about rights and privileges. In fact, he seems to have them transposed.
Here's a link to the youtube audio of the trial. You can listen for yourself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yesterday: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/305471/20120227/iran-pastor-youcef-nad
arkhani-execution-update.htm
"Iran is denying the existence of the execution order on Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.
"Following years of trials, Nadarkhani was reportedly sentenced to death ..."
Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME