That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 11 of 21
PIZMO- there is a saying ... you might have heard it... that goes "Sticks and stones might break my bones but names will never hurt me".
The response to words you don't like is more words.
I can see that in some cases, a person standing close to another person and speaking in threatening tones might elicit a self-defensive (physical) response, and I suppose it could be argued in court whether that was valid self-defense. But this is not even that case. Someone was marching in the middle of the street, someone came off the curb to accost him. THAT much is clear from the video. The threat, if there was one, came from the accused not the demonstrator.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:NO, that time is still here. It is enshrined in our constitution.
That time is passed then, right?Quote: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.
If you watch the video I think you'll see there's nothing there, not anything to prosecute someone with
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.
Sorry, I think the 1st was meant for greater things - this trivializes it to me to some extent.
I think you're right about the judge and avoidance. I think the parade of humans behaving badly they see must wear on them after a while.
"In a civilized society, we use words, not fists. Best stick with that."
There were no fists here and clearly we're not a civilized society yet.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Greater things than protecting freedom of/from religion? Isn't that one of the foundations of our nation? What greater cause are you looking for?
I think the 1st was meant for greater things - this trivializes it to me to some extent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
2) Clear cut assault. But let's call it harassment.
Harassment
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
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?
Best point you made - all this will serve in the end are lawyers. This is not Saving America's Freedom case.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
PIZMO- there is a saying ... you might have heard it... that goes "Sticks and stones might break my bones but names will never hurt me".
The response to words you don't like is more words.
I can see that in some cases, a person standing close to another person and speaking in threatening tones might elicit a self-defensive (physical) response, and I suppose it could be argued in court whether that was valid self-defense. But this is not even that case. Someone was marching in the middle of the street, someone came off the curb to accost him. THAT much is clear from the video. The threat, if there was one, came from the accused not the demonstrator.
There's another saying: "If you play with fire you're going to get burned." I think that may be what the judge found the most eye-rolling, "why do you go looking for trouble? Why do you have to play with fire?" The marcher was pretty clearly projecting "I am Dead Mohammed, back from the grave..." you have to think he was looking for confrontation. Reminds me of when Frem says cops will plant themselves in Occupy to discredit them - this person is there to elicit this response - that's public endangerment, that is like yelling fire at a theatre. Why was he filming the crowd? Almost like he was waiting for that response.
This is this case, not an assault on religion - which is what the Christian Fundies want you to think - funny, never thought I'd see you on their side.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... that's public endangerment..."
Eh, no, it's not. BTW when you claim something is 'like' something else, for example, that this was 'like' yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre, it really does have to be 'like' it. Just saying so doesn't make it so.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Greater things than protecting freedom of/from religion? Isn't that one of the foundations of our nation? What greater cause are you looking for?
I think the 1st was meant for greater things - this trivializes it to me to some extent.
I think you and Anthony have the same faulty extreme-o meters.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I wonder where the ACLU is?"
This may or may not be a case they would like to take up. But AFAIK the ACLU has to be invited in. They do not simply swoop in and take over like Batman.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
never thought I'd see you on their side.
Hello,
I suppose if someone defends the rights of Westboro Baptists to hold their hateful signs, one is on the side of the Westboro Baptists.
If someone defends the rights of Nazis to gather and march, one is on the side of the Nazis.
Is that what this comes down to? You want to be on the side of the good guys, and off the side of the bad guys?
The hard thing about living by a set of principles is that sometimes good guys do the wrong thing, and you have to defend- not the bad guys themselves, but their rights. Because if the bad guys lose their rights, the good guys are next.
--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 1kiki:
"that's public endangerment"
Eh, no, it's not.
I think this case will fade like many before it when the next daily outrage happens, but if it did go to another hearing, I would not be surprised if some attorney for the Muslim tried to argue that somewhere (and maybe possibly fail). I think their case would be on the Zombie guy's intentions. Was he there just for the fun of the parade or was he there to provoke? Maybe Hero has some insight.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME