That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 20 of 21
Actually further info has come out regarding the manner in which the trial proceeded, in which the zombie pope was NOT allowed to testify as witness (although he offered to) because that testimony wouldn't jibe with how the judge wanted things to go, also I believe the video was excluded.
Choo Choo goes the railroad train, as it were.
Par for the course these days in our so-called justice system, that the court gets to cherry pick the evidence and testimony to favor something other than justice.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I'M trying to say is that the judge's reasoning is WRONG. There is no Constitutional basis for his little finger-wagging sermon to the victim, especially the part where he says the victim exceeded his First Amendment rights, as clearly he did not.
I understand the appeal to be more sensitive. I don't generally go around calling entire groups by the most offensive categorical name possible, nor do I trip over the "provocation" line by calling individuals by offensive categorical names. Nor do I engage in "hate speech" (which the right routinely does) by suggesting that certain types of ppl be "put down". Hey, I've had sensitivity training and I use it!
But if I were to spoof something that I find truly ridiculous, I would be well within my rights to do so. You cannot have a free exchange of ideas anywhere without someone, somewhere getting offended. And there is no Constitutional right to not ever being offended. And of all of the Supreme Court decisions that I've read limiting free speech, I think they would agree with me.
www.anarchytv.com/speech/cases.html
Quote:Only as an extreme perversion of justice.
He could have been charged with disturbing the peace
FREM: Indeed. The judge threw out SO much evidence that it's clear that he already knew what his decision was going to be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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"."
But hate speech is constitutionally protected.
"Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."
And it is definitely NOT "fighting words".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What I'M trying to say is that the judge's reasoning is WRONG. There is no Constitutional basis for his little finger-wagging sermon to the victim, especially the part where he says the victim exceeded his First Amendment rights, as clearly he did not.
Of COURSE he's wrong, but that doesn't mean the decision is without PRECEDENT.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
speech that incites imminent lawless action
Hello?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you may have covered the precedent, but... what is it? Can you cite the decision?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd say Feiner vs. New York is an example. Most of the time Supreme Court does act to strike down exceptions against free speech, but the courts have also explicitly said that they do consider exceptions to free speech to exist. There's a lot of attempts to clarify this, but it really comes across as arbitrary and deliberately technical, and mostly to ensure that the only free speech allowed is the kind that is meaningless and has no broader impact. It's like how burning a draft card wasn't okay (thus an action that would actually make a difference in not allowing a person to be drafted), but wearing a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" is (ineffectual speech).
So the law is kind of a muddled area. In local courts you probably expect to find them upholding ordinances and enforcing them in the interests of keeping the peace. At higher levels, you'd see more of them striking down ordinances as unconstitutional.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fighting words, which these are not, or promotes direct violence, or imminent lawless action - "string him up", "rush the place". Even CROSS BURNING has been found protected, unless it is a specific threat of violence against particular persons.
Otherwise - no.
Hate speech which does NOT cross very specific lines - "obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that INCITES imminent lawless action" - is constitutionally protected. ie to incite means you must be specifically advocating a course of action, not just doing something in general that some people might become upset with.
"Focusing on the "rise up in arms and fight for their rights" part of Feiner's speech, the court found that Feiner's First Amendment rights were not violated, because his arrest came when the police thought that a riot might occur."
Feiner wasn't just parodying something, or offering general comments. He was specifically promoting violent action - he was inciting.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Fighting words, which these are not
Except apparently they were, unless you're arguing that a fight didn't break out over it.
The "words" in "fighting words" don't have to be spoken.
Quote:
is constitutionally protected. ie to incite means you must be specifically advocating a course of action, not just doing something in general that some people might become upset with.
Generally... Yes to the first part. But the second part depends on the jurisdiction and local laws. Decisions on a local level are made according to local law. Local laws are overturned as unconstitutional if brought to the attention of a higher court.
Hate crime ordinances are fairly common. And continue to exist on the books until there's cause TO overturn them.
So this person could appeal, to try to get it overturned, but probably won't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seems like Moslem Genocidal Sharia Law violates the international law?
If burning themselves alive and chopping off their own heads over a funny cartoon isn't breaking international laws...well then ...
https://www.theblaze.com/news/taliban-hang-bodies-crane-afghanistan
The sleepy Biden Kamala Admin had praised them for being businesslike and professional while hundreds of Americans still remain trapped.
All of these terrorist militia jihadi murdering people are mohammedans, everyone of them prays to that 1400 yr old terrorist pedophile named mahomet with his 'talking donkey' and all islamics muslims they pray to that stupid Moongod of rape and death called Al-Lah.
Some people wonder why I mostly class the entire thing as 'mohammedanism' it actually helps clear up a lot of propaganda and confusion, I seperate it into Shiite and Sunni and then these people break down into their local tribal, ethnic jihadi, family and regional conflicts
The Taliban raghead failure CAN’T TAKE ON THE ISLAMIC STATE ...what islamic state...I thought ISIS was almost totally tunred to dust?
https://warontherocks.com/2021/10/the-taliban-cant-take-on-the-islamic
-state-alone/
So this cluster fuck is going to allow ISIS and Al-Qaeda to make a comeback?
So Trump Deranged Syndrome, the haters would you still vote to re-elect Kamala Biden?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME