That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 19 of 21
Me, I have a broader definition of "Free Speech" than most, but y'all knew that, I just wanted to add this...
You know, Mohammad himself probably would have found that downright hilarious - he *did* have a rather snarky sense of humor and much enjoyed taking the piss out of the self-important, lest one forget this is the guy who showed up for prayers in a robe with one sleeve cause he didn't wanna disturb his beloved cat sleeping on the other...
And one can just imagine him with this huge grin the whole time daring anyone to say something.
In fact, culturally he was as much a pot-stirring jerk as Mikey can be around here - one reason various leaders at the time weren't too happy with the fellow.
You know what he prolly woulda done if he'd been still alive and saw that ?
He would have walked behind the guy doing zombie impressions and mocking him for such a poor performance, lol.
Seriously, he was LIKE that.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When it talks about public figures it means existing people who are for various reasons or circumstances under the scrutiny of the public.
The prophet Mohammed is more like... a public domain character. But more specifically, he could be taken as a representative figure, and therefore potentially a stereotype, of a swath of population.
Frankly I don't see much difference, going by the letter of the law, between this and say dressing up in black face and having a black person violently take issue.
Both people involved are, according to the law, in the wrong.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to opine that once we got little Rappy out of the way, it turned into an interesting thread. I really enjoyed everyone chiming in.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I just wanted to opine that once we got little Rappy out of the way, it turned into an interesting thread. I really enjoyed everyone chiming in.
I'll take that as a thanks to me for starting the thread in the 1st place.
You're welcome.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BYTE: To try to come up with an analogy to your "blackface" moment:
"Let's say you have two people who promote education. So one decides to dress up as a hillbilly and one decides to dress up as a black street thug, one carries a sign saying "I am dum" and the other carries a sign saying "I dindt graduat hi skool".
Offensive?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If someone were to attack them based on this, then there's an element of provoking a fight.
With deliberate provocation, the person expressing themselves so provocatively might be charged with disturbing the peace for what ensues. With an accidental provocation, in a case where in retrospect the circumstances would obviously have been provoking, they wouldn't be charged but a judge might inform them how backwards stupid they are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, you presume that ANY attack is because it was "provoked"? There seems to be an element of "blaming the victim" here. Or could there possibly be attackers who are unreasonably sensitive?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, here is the decision on provocation
Quote:This does not prohibit general statements made to the public at large, but statements made to a specific person
That part of c. 378, § 2, of the Public Law of New Hampshire which forbids under penalty that any person shall address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place," or "call him by any offensive or derisive name," was construed by the Supreme Court of the State, in this case and before this case arose, as limited to the use in a public place of words directly tending to cause a breach of the peace by provoking the person addressed to acts of violence.
Quote:
That, as applied to a person who, on a public street, addressed another as a "damned Fascist" and a "damned racketeer," it does not substantially or unreasonably impinge upon freedom of speech. P. 574 . (3) The refusal of the state court to admit evidence offered by the defendant tending to prove provocation and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances charged is open to no constitutional objection. P. 574 . 2. The Court notices judicially that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. P. 574 91 N.H. 310, 18 A.2d 754, affirmed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte
Deliberate provocation isn't defined in WIKI the same way you seem to be meaning it. They require a personal, to your specific person, provocation.
And public satire - that age old means of deflating authority and propriety around the globe - is DEFINITELY protected under the constitution.
BTW - if a Catholic attacked the 'pope' figure, would you say it was due to provocation? Or do you only think it applies to Muslims, b/c, in your view, they are 'specially' sensitive to portrayal of persons?
Or do you think the Muslim in question should be allowed his stated justification - b/c he figured for sure such a thing was against the law?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm explaining what the judge's reasoning here is. The specific case could easily be considered some blurring between hate speech (which can be spoofing religious figures as much as it can be black face or burning crosses) and provocative/offensive speech/fighting "words".
Obviously, some groups of people will find certain kinds of speech more offensive than others, for historical or cultural reasons. Hitting a known berserk button and causing a disturbance of peace, deliberately or not, and this result, is not necessarily a matter of increased sensitivity or favouritism towards one group or another but the government's vested interest in keeping the peace.
The jurisdiction where this judge works has a hate crime ordinance, which directed the result of this ruling. Now, hate crime ordinances have actually been struck down by the US Supreme Court, but because of the way the system works, it's generally on a case by case basis.
The aggrieved atheist could try to appeal the ruling, and go about it that way, but I suspect he won't, because ultimately neither of them were convicted for anything. He could have been charged with disturbing the peace under their ordinance, and therefore I'd say he actually got off lucky.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME