Real World Event Discussions
That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 9 of 21
Monday, February 27, 2012 4:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Pizmo,
I am shocked at your position and disagree with you.
Only offensive speech needs to be protected, obviously. No one objects to the other kind.
Just as we can not assault Westboro Baptists, we can not assault zombie Mohammads.
Freedom of speech must absolutely apply to the most offensive speech around, else it's pointless.
I'm not sure you are serious...? If you are then:
I think you are blowing something 2 knuckleheads did way out of proportion. Will you celebrate you speech freedoms by visiting a baptist church and screaming, "you're all a bunch of low-life ni....ers!" Please video tape that so we can enjoy your courageous all-or-nothing position. I like to think you won't, because you exhibit a pretty good common sense in most things.
Besides, the judge he did not find conclusive proof that the zombie was assaulted - so: law followed, and armageddon averted.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, February 27, 2012 4:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Pizmo,
I am shocked at your position and disagree with you.
Only offensive speech needs to be protected, obviously. No one objects to the other kind.
Just as we can not assault Westboro Baptists, we can not assault zombie Mohammads.
Freedom of speech must absolutely apply to the most offensive speech around, else it's pointless.
I'm not sure you are serious...? If you are then:
I think you are blowing something 2 knuckleheads did way out of proportion. Will you celebrate you speech freedoms by visiting a baptist church and screaming, "you're all a bunch of low-life ni....ers!" Please video tape that so we can enjoy your courageous all-or-nothing position. I like to think you won't, because you exhibit a pretty good common sense in most things.
Besides, the judge he did not find conclusive proof that the zombie was assaulted - so: law followed, and armageddon averted.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
Hello,
Why would I make speech regarding something I do not believe? I am content to make offensive speech about things I do believe in. Indeed, some of my stated positions on this board have been quite offensive to some people, and would get me slain in places without speech protections.
Moreover, there is little objective doubt that there was physical contact between the costumed man and the man who took offense. This is called assault. Why you would defend this aggression and side with its apologists is beyond my ken.
If I am ever so offended by someone's speech that I decide to accost them, I fully expect to go to jail or pay some form of restitution, because I will have committed a crime.
--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
Monday, February 27, 2012 4:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Why would I make speech regarding something I do not believe? I am content to make offensive speech about things I do believe in. Indeed, some of my stated positions on this board have been quite offensive to some people, and would get me slain in places without speech protections.
I said you probably wouldn't, but others easily might. If you make speech void of any consequences then you will embolden the dullest people to exploit it. We're in the area of simple common sense here, not something that's so black and white. I think what the judge said about the Founders was brilliant. The Free Speech I believe they were talking about was the speech to be contrary to Gov., not to insult and belittle. I don't want to see our courts clogged with morons who think they can say anything and get away with it. I think it's good that the message here is: don't be a fool.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Moreover, there is little objective doubt that there was physical contact between the costumed man and the man who took offense. This is called assault. Why you would defend this aggression and side with its apologists is beyond my ken.
He pulled on the offensive cardboard sign around his neck held on by a string - that's a bit of a stretch to assault. Ask the muslim if he felt assaulted by the sign.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If I am ever so offended by someone's speech that I decide to accost them, I fully expect to go to jail or pay some form of restitution, because I will have committed a crime.
It's very likely that this muslim thought the same thing would happen to him as well - guess this was his lucky day, maybe he'll learn from it.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, February 27, 2012 4:47 PM
Quote:
The Free Speech I believe they were talking about was the speech to be contrary to Gov., not to insult and belittle.
Hello,
These would be the same people who burned effigies of people they didn't like, and set images of them on nooses, and ridiculed them in publications, and mocked them in artwork and song?
Quote:
He pulled on the offensive cardboard sign around his neck held on by a string - that's a bit of a stretch to assault. Ask the muslim if he felt assaulted by the sign.
You seem to be suggesting I should be allowed to visit protests I find offensive and pull their signs away. I find this a fantastic view of freedom of speech. Incredible, even.
Quote:
It's very likely that this muslim thought the same thing would happen to him as well - guess this was his lucky day, maybe he'll learn from it.
This seems doubtful, since he was vindicated in a court of law and defended not merely by an attorney, but also by the judge. This ruling would be a win for anyone who wants to silence speech offensive to them. They now have a legal precedent defending their assault.
Quote:
I don't want to see our courts clogged with morons who think they can say anything and get away with it.
The courts exist primarily because of moronic behavior. Courts of law are purpose-built to deal with morons who think they can DO anything and get away with it. In this case, they did.
--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
Monday, February 27, 2012 5:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
The Free Speech I believe they were talking about was the speech to be contrary to Gov., not to insult and belittle.
Hello,
These would be the same people who burned effigies of people they didn't like, and set images of them on nooses, and ridiculed them in publications, and mocked them in artwork and song?Quote:
He pulled on the offensive cardboard sign around his neck held on by a string - that's a bit of a stretch to assault. Ask the muslim if he felt assaulted by the sign.
You seem to be suggesting I should be allowed to visit protests I find offensive and pull their signs away. I find this a fantastic view of freedom of speech. Incredible, even.Quote:
It's very likely that this muslim thought the same thing would happen to him as well - guess this was his lucky day, maybe he'll learn from it.
This seems doubtful, since he was vindicated in a court of law and defended not merely by an attorney, but also by the judge. This ruling would be a win for anyone who wants to silence speech offensive to them. They now have a legal precedent defending their assault.Quote:
I don't want to see our courts clogged with morons who think they can say anything and get away with it.
The courts exist primarily because of moronic behavior. Courts of law are purpose-built to deal with morons who think they can DO anything and get away with it. In this case, they did.
That's a beautiful tall horse you have Anthony.
You extrapolate to the nth degree to make your case seem stronger but in so doing all you do is make it different: "You seem to be suggesting I should be allowed to visit protests I find offensive and pull their signs away."
No, I am suggesting that in this case it wasn't a punch or a kick or wrestling, it pulling the offending sign, one that was aimed to illicit that response. Worked!
"The courts exist primarily because of moronic behavior."
Murder, rape, theft at gun point, corporate crime on and on, I don't think you should diminish these by saying they are the acts of morons or in the same league as this case - maybe you are thinking of small claims?
And as usual, someone else has said it better than I did - from a comment on atheist.org below - turns out the judge is not a Muslim (shock, horror! someone made that up to incite viral marketing).
http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/muslim-attacks-atheist-muslim-judg
e-dismisses-case-blames-victim
"Sadly, there is a serious rush to judgment here on the part of American Atheists with respect to this judge. I would hope to see an immediate correction.
First, the judge is apparently not Muslim according to his staff and a writer for the very conservative National Review ( http://bit.ly/xcDjYk) believes the judge did not say he is Muslim. In my view, the vast amount of outrage over this case has not to do with the judgment, per se, but that it was based on religious belief or bias. Although inadvertent, by repeating that here, people assume it to be true.
The defendant was charged with harassment, not assault. Under Pennsylvania law ( http://bit.ly/x2mptH), an assault is committed when a person attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. Whether this defendant intended to cause bodily injury is unclear to me, but it sounds as if he was trying to stop the person from wearing a costume that he felt defamed his religion, rather than trying to injure him. In any case, he was not charged with assault by the prosecutor, so it seems clear the prosecutor did not consider whatever his actions may have been to constitute assault. The judge is not the prosecutor, so we can put aside any bias of the judge with respect to whether an assault took place, since he was not asked to rule on that.
The Pennsylvania law on harassment ( http://bit.ly/ydCwP3) seems aimed primarily at people repeatedly doing things that would be considered inh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, February 27, 2012 5:27 PM
Running up to someone and touching them in any threatening manner is consider "battery" in CA. Allowing one person to do that to another is poor judgment, whether the judge is Xtian, Muslim or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist. It should not be permitted whether the parader/ demonstrator is dressed as Hitler and carrying a swastika, a little old lady carrying a picture of an aborted fetus, or an Occupy demonstrator in chains carrying a picture of Diamon.
The only time that images (or speech) should be restricted are when they incite violence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, February 27, 2012 5:27 PM
Quote:
turns out the judge is not a Muslim (shock, horror! someone made that up to incite viral marketing).
Hello,
You will note, doubtless with some interest, that I do not give a flying fig about the religion of the Judge. None of my arguments or outrage are directed at anything religious. They are directed at someone being allowed to violate another person's freedom of speech, and then being defended by the judge in their action, while the person giving the speech is given a dressing down.
Now, if some legal misstep or technicality is responsible for the ruling, that is unfortunate, but not the fault of the judge. Legal technicalities exist for a reason, to protect someone's rights.
I continue to find it very inappropriate for an official of the law, in his official capacity, to give a person a dressing down for exercising their rights. And I am still thunderstruck that you would find agreement with such a position.
This is not about the height of a horse, nor is it about taking something to an outrageous degree. This is about one man acting within his rights and one man acting outside his rights. This is about chastising the wrong man, and defending the wrong man. And apparently, this is also about justice lost because someone, somewhere, was incompetent to bring it through.
--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
Monday, February 27, 2012 5:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Running up to someone and touching them in any threatening manner is consider "battery" in CA. Allowing one person to do that to another is poor judgment, whether the judge is Xtian, Muslim or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist. It should not be permitted whether the parader/ demonstrator is dressed as Hitler and carrying a swastika, a little old lady carrying a picture of an aborted fetus, or an Occupy demonstrator in chains carrying a picture of Diamon.
The only time that images (or speech) should be restricted are when they incite violence.
From the article: The defendant was charged with harassment, not assault. Under Pennsylvania law ( http://bit.ly/x2mptH), an assault is committed when a person attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. Whether this defendant intended to cause bodily injury is unclear to me, but it sounds as if he was trying to stop the person from wearing a costume that he felt defamed his religion, rather than trying to injure him.
So not "off" scot free.
Do you find any significance that this is coming up now, when it supposedly happened last Halloween? Feels like Free Speech Advocates/Zealots are being used by the Christian Right.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, February 27, 2012 5:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
turns out the judge is not a Muslim (shock, horror! someone made that up to incite viral marketing).
Hello,
You will note, doubtless with some interest, that I do not give a flying fig about the religion of the Judge. None of my arguments or outrage are directed at anything religious. They are directed at someone being allowed to violate another person's freedom of speech, and then being defended by the judge in their action, while the person giving the speech is given a dressing down.
Now, if some legal misstep or technicality is responsible for the ruling, that is unfortunate, but not the fault of the judge. Legal technicalities exist for a reason, to protect someone's rights.
I continue to find it very inappropriate for an official of the law, in his official capacity, to give a person a dressing down for exercising their rights. And I am still thunderstruck that you would find agreement with such a position.
This is not about the height of a horse, nor is it about taking something to an outrageous degree. This is about one man acting within his rights and one man acting outside his rights. This is about chastising the wrong man, and defending the wrong man. And apparently, this is also about justice lost because someone, somewhere, was incompetent to bring it through.
I really think you're being played.
You should care about the reporting Anthony, that if "muslim" was added that there might be other biases/lies added to get you to think a certain way about this case (as you have), it should tell you something about the intentions of this source and whether they should be trusted.
Turns out the defendant was charged. I found "doofus" to be completely accurate, more like a concerned father talking to his son who should know better, disappointment tinged with light humor.
I asked SignyM, same for you: don't you find it curious that this story is making the rounds now? I doubt that's an accident.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, February 27, 2012 5:47 PM
Quote:
Free Speech Advocates/Zealots
Hello,
Zealots, eh?
We Zealots defend Free Speech always, even when it is unpopular or may aid an unpopular group. Even if it is a group we despise.
--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