That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 17 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I can't see the video in question about the judge, but people calling this Sharia law are going a bit too far, really. This is one guy being let off because there wasn't sufficient evidence due to a bad video recording and what the judge considered a lot of hearsay from all parties. Compare how many times Muslims are guilty before proven innocent...
Except the defendant admitted to the arresting officer that he charged out of the crowd and attacked the zombie Mohammed. He had the right to remain silent, just not the ability.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Except the defendant admitted to the arresting officer that he charged out of the crowd and attacked the zombie Mohammed. He had the right to remain silent, just not the ability.
So we hear, but that isn't the same thing as a signed confession, and there also might be circumstantial reasons why that was dismissed. One version of this story I encountered was that the police officer never heard a confession at all, but rather took Percy's word for it.
1kiki's provided information is even more to the point - if the judge is a Lutheran, it can hardly be called Sharia law to inform someone that they are an idiot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You do realize that with this decision judge Martin has effectively put in place a restriction on freedom of speech. You are free to say what you want, until someone gets offended.
Not much of a right anymore.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Should we or should we not obey their laws? Which is what we were doing, burning defiled holy books, as their religious law demands.
I restate my opinion that any reasonably intelligent population shouldn't be in the business of burning books, and doing so makes them all gigantic tools.
In the very least, doing so puts them among some very unlovely company.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You do realize that with this decision judge Martin has effectively put in place a restriction on freedom of speech. You are free to say what you want, until someone gets offended.
Not much of a right anymore.
No really? I wasn't aware of that precedent that Judge Martin called upon, and I DON'T hate it with a passion. Clearly I wasn't only saying that the Judge followed the letter of the law, I love the government telling me what I can do with my creativity and noise hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Derp.
(You'll be looking for "offensive speech")
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
I've listened to the audio. That's not what it sounds like to me.
I wouldn't rule out tampering - that would be easy on a basic PC to cut out "if." If he's not a muslim, he's really not a muslim, can't make him one. It sounds like "Imma Muslim," to me too, but this makes more sense considering the agenda driven source. Some True Believers have been known to carve words in their own foreheads and then lie about who did it to cast suspicions on others.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If the judge's ruling was based on lack of evidence, that's one thing. (Tho the fact that the attacker admitted to the police what he had done might fall under 'excited utterance' and therefore be excluded from Miranda, and therefore included as evidence. As a matter of law, he could have been wrong.)
It's his admonishment I find troubling. Living in this country, whether you are a natural born citizen, an immigrant who's attained citizenship, or an alien, you are obliged to follow the law of the land. The most basic law of the land is the Constitution, which protects free speech (some types of speech are not protected). That gives people the right to offend other people's sensibilities, without legal restriction.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't really think the judge was saying that a Muslim can ignore US law because of their religious law, I think he was just trying to give the atheist some perspective about what it's like in other countries. And call him a moron. Which he probably is.
So really the bigger objection to all of this is that it upholds the idea that it's okay beating someone up for personal expression because they're offensive, but, as I just posted, that's the interpretation of the law.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can understand a 'you don't know how good you have it here' lecture, or a 'don't be such an ugly American' lecture but this: "you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights" is over the line. Pearce was well within his First Amendment rights.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME