Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[Very_Bad_Man]

It looks like off2bed gets it, but vetteman is still confused.

no.

vette is currently exercising his civil rights to be a dummy.

this is one civil right that needs repealed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, despite what the local Glibertarians might opine.

Google "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" and/or "fighting words" if you don't believe me.

"Zombie Muhammad" deliberately set out to provoke a reaction. The lack of reaction to "Zombie Jesus" or "Zombie Pope" or whatever the other guy was dressed as was immaterial and a false equivalency.

 

[John Doe]

I'm in favor of the government being required to treat everyone equally, but private citizens should be free to treat each other as they please as long as they don't physically or financially damage someone else. Hurt feelings don't count.

The government violates "civil rights" all the time. The trouble is, we've made it so difficult to redress that grievance that it's hardly worthwhile to complain.

I can't imagine a better avatar to go with that post.

 

[cjh]

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, despite what the local Glibertarians might opine.

Google "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" and/or "fighting words" if you don't believe me.

"Zombie Muhammad" deliberately set out to provoke a reaction. The lack of reaction to "Zombie Jesus" or "Zombie Pope" or whatever the other guy was dressed as was immaterial and a false equivalency.

You're right that the right is not absolute. You're wrong about Zombie Mohammed not being protected.

Here's a timeline of the Skokie Nazi march case.

http://www.skokiehistory.info/chrono/nazis.html

Zombie Mohammed is like the Nazi marchers, not like someone falsely yelling fire. He's exercising political speech and religious speech.

 

[Liar]

So, cliffnotes version. Stop me if I got something wrong.

1. Doofus atheist wears provocative anti-islam costume.
2. Doofus muslim thinks it's illegal, and gets in his face about it.
3. Doofus muslim tries and fails to physically remove costume.
4. They both complain to a cop.
5. Doofus muslim gets slapped with harassment charges (no, not even assault, so the police at the scene and witnesses, if any, must have deemed the scuffle as minor)
6. Judge throws out harassment case, as far as I can see because the judge saw it as a reaction to a clear provocation.

Oh and,

7. The conservative blogosphere goes apeshit and starts hyperventilating about Sharia because the judge is a muslim.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

The Constitution is a list of things the government is and isn't allowed to do.

"Civil rights" are random whining grievances made up by society's weaker members because they lacked the cojones to stand up for themselves.

mmmmhmmm...

It is not a "civil right" to practice Atheism by mocking others!

I disagree, being an asshole about your religious/metaphysical/philosophical beliefs is as american as 1911's, big block V8's and apple pie.

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, despite what the local Glibertarians might opine.

Google "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" and/or "fighting words" if you don't believe me.

I believe you, however zombie religious figures in a Halloween parade are hardly a case of public endangerment, direct threats or instigation of violence.

"Zombie Muhammad" deliberately set out to provoke a reaction. The lack of reaction to "Zombie Jesus" or "Zombie Pope" or whatever the other guy was dressed as was immaterial and a false equivalency.

No....it was a Halloween zombie parade. The "zombies" were well within their right's to be assholes. The religious zealot however was not within his rights to assault the asshole and should have been prosecuted as such. Honestly it would have been even better if Muhammad pulled a 10mm and decapitated the Islamic fascist in the street via hand cannon. No set of religious beliefs should offer impunity to the law...ever.

 

[mercury14]

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, despite what the local Glibertarians might opine.

Google "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" and/or "fighting words" if you don't believe me.

"Zombie Muhammad" deliberately set out to provoke a reaction. The lack of reaction to "Zombie Jesus" or "Zombie Pope" or whatever the other guy was dressed as was immaterial and a false equivalency.

I would say that zombie Muhammad definitely set out to provoke a reaction, but doing it in some parade is different than moseying down to the steps of the local mosque. When someone takes deliberate steps to provoke conflict that will most likely be considered in court. It's possible that even the parade scenario would be considered sufficient provocation. That doesn't mean the assailant is innocent but provoked actions are different than simply malicious ones. It can mean a different charge or sentence.

With that being said can we stop saying this guy was "attacked". The charge was harassment for sign and beard snatching. Nobody got punched, kicked, or injured in any way. The defendant said he was choked but the cop wouldn't testify to it and there were no witnesses who would say as much despite dozens of onlookers. Nobody was attacked.

 

[Lord_Steve]

So, cliffnotes version. Stop me if I got something wrong.

1. Doofus atheist wears provocative anti-islam costume.
2. Doofus muslim thinks it's illegal, and gets in his face about it.
3. Doofus muslim tries and fails to physically remove costume.
4. They both complain to a cop.
5. Doofus muslim gets slapped with harassment charges (no, not even assault, so the police at the scene and witnesses, if any, must have deemed the scuffle as minor)
6. Judge throws out harassment case, as far as I can see because the judge saw it as a reaction to a clear provocation.

Oh and,

7. The conservative blogosphere goes apeshit and starts hyperventilating about Sharia because the judge is a muslim.

yes but don't you know that the actions of a single doofus can be extrapolated to reflect the views of an entire religion/culture and furthermore

 

[TexasWife25]

So, cliffnotes version. Stop me if I got something wrong.

1. Doofus atheist wears provocative anti-islam costume.
2. Doofus muslim thinks it's illegal, and gets in his face about it.
3. Doofus muslim tries and fails to physically remove costume.
4. They both complain to a cop.
5. Doofus muslim gets slapped with harassment charges (no, not even assault, so the police at the scene and witnesses, if any, must have deemed the scuffle as minor)
6. Judge throws out harassment case, as far as I can see because the judge saw it as a reaction to a clear provocation.

Oh and,

7. The conservative blogosphere goes apeshit and starts hyperventilating about Sharia because the judge is a muslim.

and this is the 2nd thread dedicated to how Muslims are allowed to break the law

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

FIGHTING WORDS DOCTRINE.

You cannot provoke violence.

 

[mercury14]

So, cliffnotes version. Stop me if I got something wrong.

1. Doofus atheist wears provocative anti-islam costume.
2. Doofus muslim thinks it's illegal, and gets in his face about it.
3. Doofus muslim tries and fails to physically remove costume.
4. They both complain to a cop.
5. Doofus muslim gets slapped with harassment charges (no, not even assault, so the police at the scene and witnesses, if any, must have deemed the scuffle as minor)
6. Judge throws out harassment case, as far as I can see because the judge saw it as a reaction to a clear provocation.

Oh and,

7. The conservative blogosphere goes apeshit and starts hyperventilating about Sharia because the judge is a muslim.

Bingo. Conservatives will not respond to this though.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No....it was a Halloween zombie parade. The "zombies" were well within their right's to be assholes. The religious zealot however was not within his rights to assault the asshole and should have been prosecuted as such. Honestly it would have been even better if Muhammad pulled a 10mm and decapitated the Islamic fascist in the street via hand cannon. No set of religious beliefs should offer impunity to the law...ever.

Ahhh....I missed the part about it being a Halloween parade. That changes my perception on events, imho.

(and who has "Halloween Parades" anyway?)

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, despite what the local Glibertarians might opine.

Google "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" and/or "fighting words" if you don't believe me.

"Zombie Muhammad" deliberately set out to provoke a reaction. The lack of reaction to "Zombie Jesus" or "Zombie Pope" or whatever the other guy was dressed as was immaterial and a false equivalency.

first part yes, someone yelling "Zombie muhammad" does not give any fucktard islamic nut jobber the right to strike another person.

another thing, burning a freaking book and people riot in the streets? clearly we need to accidentally drop a couple nukes on that country

 

[TexasWife25]

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

FIGHTING WORDS DOCTRINE.

You cannot provoke violence.

the confrontation wasnt even enough to charge his with assault, so I dont think in this instance you can even say there was violence.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Bingo. Conservatives will not respond to this though.

you are a fucking idiot

 

[TexasWife25]

it was a Halloween parade? The video made it look like 2 atheist marching in a "freedom of speech" thing.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

So, cliffnotes version. Stop me if I got something wrong.

1. Doofus atheist wears provocative anti-islam costume.
2. Doofus muslim thinks it's illegal, and gets in his face about it.
3. Doofus muslim tries and fails to physically remove costume.
4. They both complain to a cop.
5. Doofus muslim gets slapped with harassment charges (no, not even assault, so the police at the scene and witnesses, if any, must have deemed the scuffle as minor)
6. Judge throws out harassment case, as far as I can see because the judge saw it as a reaction to a clear provocation.

Oh and,

7. The conservative blogosphere goes apeshit and starts hyperventilating about Sharia because the judge is a muslim.

if the muslim tries to remove a person's shirt, or touches another person, then the muslim should be hit with charges. its just that simple

if the muslim says something that he is offended and the person tries to hit the muslim, then said person gets hit with charges.

its just that simple


clearly, the fucktard left (and soclaist nut jobbers) are comprised of dipshit fucktards

 

[cjh]

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

FIGHTING WORDS DOCTRINE.

You cannot provoke violence.

Good link.

It shows how Chaplinsky has been seriously limited.

If Fred Phelps words aren't fighting words, Zombie Mohammed's costume certainly is not.

 

[Wrong Element]

and this is the 2nd thread dedicated to how Muslims are allowed to break the law

I think it's actually the third. I haven't heard about this case anywhere but Lit, so it must be making the rounds on Drudge and other arenas where the paranoids hang out.

Dressing up as "Zombie Muhammad" is clearly protected speech, and there's some evidence that the judge is deeply confused on this point, but that wasn't really the issue in this case. The notion that the judge invoked sharia in his acquittal is not supported by the facts. Period.

 

[Sean]

Good link.

It shows how Chaplinsky has been seriously limited.

If Fred Phelps words aren't fighting words, Zombie Mohammed's costume certainly is not.

I'm pretty sure that one is impossible to adjudicate. Unless the exact same language was used in the exact same circumstances, I honestly don't see how you can give a ruling that isn't open to challenge if the circs vary even minimally.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

the confrontation wasnt even enough to charge his with assault, so I dont think in this instance you can even say there was violence.

I got no dog in the fight. The guy shoulda killed the raghead who attacked him. In Florida you can do that. But I was curious what the philosophy is bout provocative speech.

 

[Liar]

if the muslim tries to remove a person's shirt, or touches another person, then the muslim should be hit with charges. its just that simple

if the muslim says something that he is offended and the person tries to hit the muslim, then said person gets hit with charges.

its just that simple


clearly, the fucktard left (and soclaist nut jobbers) are comprised of dipshit fucktards

A lot of ifs there.

The fact is, nobody was charged with physically assaulting anybody. The muslim guy was charged with harassment. From what I can tell because he started the verbal part of the argument. Most likely because it's unclear who got physical first.

And the judge concluded that that wasn't enough for a case. Cause you know, talking to people ain't illegal. Even if you talk loudly and wave your arms a lot.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

it was a Halloween parade? The video made it look like 2 atheist marching in a "freedom of speech" thing.

w/e....parade or loon on the street's it's illegal to assault another person and attackers should be charged as such.

I got no dog in the fight. The guy shoulda killed the raghead who attacked him. In Florida you can do that. But I was curious what the philosophy is bout provocative speech.

IDK...do you think a white man would be acquitted on the spot for assaulting/ wasting a haj in the street for burning a bible or american flag? Doubtful....

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

w/e....parade or loon on the street's it's illegal to assault another person and attackers should be charged as such.



IDK...do you think a white man would be acquitted on the spot for assaulting/ wasting a haj in the street for burning a bible or american flag? Doubtful....

No he wouldnt. But ragheads are the flavor of the month for now.

Traditionally, when any group becomes teachers pet, Americans fuck them when no ones looking.

 

[Liar]

w/e....parade or loon on the street's it's illegal to assault another person and attackers should be charged as such.

And the fact that he wasn't charged with assault but with harassment tells you what?