California Prosecutes Man For Posting Anti-Muslim Messages On Facebook

[BeeZeBody]

No word

If they will prosecute those that post anti Trump messages

 

[Que]

No word

If they will prosecute those that post anti Trump messages

Does your state have an extradition treaty with the State of California?

 

[phrodeau]

He never posts anything against Chondoism, the state religion of North Korea. I wonder why.

 

[Saint_Ann]

All I get is cat pics.

 

[BeeZeBody]

Does your state have an extradition treaty with the State of California?

 

[BeeZeBody]

not ONE sane response

why?

WE KNOW WHY!

 

[ryan8558]

If he would have kept his anti-Islam postings on his own page, there would have been no problems. The problems come in when you specifically target an Islamic Facebook page.




from the Daily Caller

ICSC Communications Coordinator Kristin Stangas blocked Feigin soon after he made the final post, but also kept copies of the comments to pursue legal action. The Los Angeles Police Department arrested Feigin Oct. 19 and interviewed him. Feigin is now arguing that his charges should be dismissed because they are based on an unconstitutional application of the law.

Specifically, Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b) states that “every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device … to another person is … guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.”

BB that law could protect even you.

 

[Rightguide]

The state of California is in full-fledged rebellion against the constitutional order of the United States. It needs to be dealt with.

 

[BeeZeBody]

If he would have kept his anti-Islam postings on his own page, there would have been no problems. The problems come in when you specifically target an Islamic Facebook page.




from the Daily Caller

ICSC Communications Coordinator Kristin Stangas blocked Feigin soon after he made the final post, but also kept copies of the comments to pursue legal action. The Los Angeles Police Department arrested Feigin Oct. 19 and interviewed him. Feigin is now arguing that his charges should be dismissed because they are based on an unconstitutional application of the law.

Specifically, Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b) states that “every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device … to another person is … guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.”

BB that law could protect even you.

why?

would he have been HAULED in if he did it to TRUMP? NRA? GOP?

No!

so please JUST STOP!

 

[ryan8558]

As long as the NRA, GOP, Christian orgs do not report harassment to the authorities, what will be done? Nothing. If nothing is done after they complain, then we have something to discuss. Right now you have jackshit to complain about.

Go on now. Have a nice day!

 

[Luk]

As long as the NRA, GOP, Christian orgs do not report harassment to the authorities, what will be done? Nothing. If nothing is done after they complain, then we have something to discuss. Right now you have jackshit to complain about.

Go on now. Have a nice day!

@bessbell: Thoughts and prayers to all the Republican politicians who lost their seats today. We won't do anything to prevent it from happening again.

 

[BeeZeBody]

As long as the NRA, GOP, Christian orgs do not report harassment to the authorities, what will be done? Nothing. If nothing is done after they complain, then we have something to discuss. Right now you have jackshit to complain about.

Go on now. Have a nice day!

just look at TWIITER.....and tell me how complaining from ONE side will work


No

Even "you" get it....though WONT admit it

 

[ryan8558]

If you live in California, don't post shit on someone else's Facebook page!

If they decide they've had enough, they can report you to the police. We are a nation of laws.

If you don't report to the police, NO JUSTICE FOR YOU!!!

 

[BeeZeBody]

its ALWAYS one sided

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If he would have kept his anti-Islam postings on his own page, there would have been no problems. The problems come in when you specifically target an Islamic Facebook page.

from the Daily Caller

ICSC Communications Coordinator Kristin Stangas blocked Feigin soon after he made the final post, but also kept copies of the comments to pursue legal action. The Los Angeles Police Department arrested Feigin Oct. 19 and interviewed him. Feigin is now arguing that his charges should be dismissed because they are based on an unconstitutional application of the law.

Specifically, Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b) states that “every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device … to another person is … guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.”

BB that law could protect even you.

If you live in California, don't post shit on someone else's Facebook page!

If they decide they've had enough, they can report you to the police. We are a nation of laws.

If you don't report to the police, NO JUSTICE FOR YOU!!!

It doesn't matter who or how many people a law is designed to protect. What matters is if that law is in keeping with the SUPREME law to which it is subordinate -- the Constitution of the United States. To paraphrase your declaration: We are NOT a nation of unconstitutional laws.

And if you think for one moment that Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b) is lawful under our Constitution, you are out of your freaking mind.

Many states have tort laws prohibiting the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" (IIED). Maryland is one such state. Consider the following:

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is very difficult to establish under Maryland personal injury law.

In order to prove a prima facie case of IIED in Maryland, the Plaintiff must show:

1. That the conduct was intentional or reckless;
2. The conduct is extreme and outrageous;
3. There is a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress;
4. The emotional distress is severe.

To meet the fourth element, the emotional distress must be “severely disabling,” such that “no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.” Being “upset” and “embarrassed” is not sufficient to show severe emotional distress. Evidence that the Plaintiff could continue with his normal life activities or that he did not seek professional treatment can show that the distress is not “severe.”

https://www.marylandaccidentattorneyblog.com/2010/09/intentional_infliction_of_emot.html

Why, you might ask, do I bring up Maryland? Because the Maryland legal standard for IIED was the background for the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case of Snyder v. Phelps (2011). That case, as you may remember, involved a civil suit by Albert Snyder, a gay man, whose son Matthew Snyder, a Marine, was killed during the Iraq War and whose funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Those pickets, among other things, alleged the biblical consequences of homosexual behavior.

At trial, Snyder won a judgment of a total of $10.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Westboro Baptist and founder Fred Phelps, having proved all four of the above cited elements of Maryland tort law.

Nonetheless, in ruling in favor of Westboro, the Supreme Court noted the following:

The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself. A group of parishioners standing at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said “God Bless America” and “God Loves You,” would not have been subjected to liability. It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages.

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection … is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995).

The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of … ‘vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.

For all these reasons, the jury verdict imposing tort liability on Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be set aside.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/562/443/opinion.html

And in the case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988), the Court was even more expressive on the legal doctrine of IIED specifically:

In respondent's view, and in the view of the Court of Appeals, so long as the utterance was intended to inflict emotional distress, was outrageous, and did in fact inflict serious emotional distress, it is of no constitutional import whether the statement was a fact or an opinion, or whether it was true or false. It is the intent to cause injury that is the gravamen of the tort, and the State's interest in preventing emotional harm simply outweighs whatever interest a speaker may have in speech of this type.

Generally speaking, the law does not regard the intent to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude, and it is quite understandable that most, if not all, jurisdictions have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (1964), we held that, even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will, his expression was protected by the First Amendment:

"Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth."

In light of the Supreme Court's holdings in Snyder and Hustler, is it really your belief that the constitutionality of a state statute targeted at speech that is "intended" to (merely) "annoy" or "harass" has a snowball's chance in hell of being upheld?

Really?

 

[BeeZeBody]

^^^^Non responsive


Not to mention

https://i.imgflip.com/ojmtq.jpg

 

[BeeZeBody]

Germany Cracks Down on Social Media Thought Crime

its ONLY one sided

 

[BeeZeBody]

Mayor Khan's policing priorities 2018.
Acid attacks? Nope.
Feral Gangs? Nope
Jihad? Nope
FGM? Nope
Robbery? Nope

Hurty Tweets? ABSOLUTELY
Islamophobia? YOU BETCHA.

What a time to be a Londoner.

 

[BeeZeBody]

its ALWAYS one sided

Twitter Suspends Ex-Muslim Cartoonist, Allows Hamas and Hezbollah