First Amendment Right

[saden1]

Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are limits to free speech. This guy is entitled to say what he wants about Mohammed and wear a costume of him but as it stands he has no protection under the law of the United States, in fact he should get in trouble for it. If this dummy were to get gunned down the assailant would get no more than a second degree murder charge.

Muslims take insults to Mohammed very seriously, enough to murk you outright. Unless you think you're good to someone dead, keep your thoughts on Mohammed behind closed doors. Ya'heard?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

Per Supreme Court decisions over the years there are limits to free speech.

Doesn't cover what Mr. Perce was doing.

Originally Posted by saden1

This guy is entitled to say what he wants about Mohammed and wear a costume of him but as it stands he has no protection under the law of the United States, in fact he should get in trouble for it.

Why?

Originally Posted by saden1

If this dummy were to get gunned down the assailant would get no more than a second degree murder charge.

He'd probably walk, depending on the judge he went in front of.

Originally Posted by saden1

Muslims take insults to Mohammed very seriously, enough to murk you outright. Unless you think you're good to someone dead, keep your thoughts on Mohammed behind closed doors. Ya'heard?

The self-aggrandizement of moslems is the problem, encouraging this by explaining it as their depth of faith.

We should certainly reward people who display a 7th Century mentality toward others in society, that'll help. /sarc

[saden1]

Doesn't cover what Mr. Perce was doing.

You can't be serious.

Why?

See the previous response and get a better grasp on the limitations of free speech.

He'd probably walk, depending on the judge he went in front of.

It's easier to blame judge than then the doofus in front of them.

The self-aggrandizement of moslems is the problem, encouraging this by explaining it as their depth of faith.

It need no explanation. Drop blood into shark invested waters and you're bound to get a few feeders. It is the nature of things and your job is to mitigate potential problems and pick your battles.

We should certainly reward people who display a 7th Century mentality toward others in society, that'll help. /sarc

They shouldn't be rewarded and they shouldn't be antagonized. If you spit in my face I am I likely to lose it and gun you down. That's the truth.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

You can't be serious.

Yeah, see my Westboro example. It can't be all one-way for people of a religious persuasion.

Originally Posted by saden1

See the previous response and get a better grasp on the limitations of free speech.

Did. See my comment.

Originally Posted by saden1

It's easier to blame judge than then the doofus in front of them.

The judge is at fault.

Originally Posted by saden1

It need no explanation. Drop blood into shark invested waters and you're bound to get a few feeders.

I hope you're not suggesting religious bigots or superstitious people are as dangerous as sharks?

Originally Posted by saden1

It is the nature of things and your job is to mitigate potential problems and pick your battles.

A judge should be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law, certainly not what this joker did.

Originally Posted by saden1

They shouldn't be rewarded and they shouldn't be antagonized. If you spit in my face I am I likely to lose it and gun you down. That's the truth.

No one was spat at, the guy went to a Halloween parade with his family and can't behave. What if he'd take exception to an angel or a devil costume? Great example to set to his kids.

At what point did common decency become so unfashionable?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Yeah, see my Westboro example. It can't be all one-way for people of a religious persuasion.

Did. See my comment.

The Westboro case was about on whether the First Amendment protected public protestors at a funeral against tort liability for emotional distress. Synder couldn't prove that he was emotionally damaged to the court. The result of the case would be completely different if Snyder was able to see the protesters and their signs more up close and personal.

"Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself"

The judge is at fault.

It's always someone else's fault.

I hope you're not suggesting religious bigots or superstitious people are as dangerous as sharks?

They are worse...sharks have the advantage of naturally being thoughtless automatons.

A judge should be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law, certainly not what this joker did.

The judge did what he thought was best in the eyes of the law. The PA bar association is more than welcome to go after him.

No one was spat at, the guy went to a Halloween parade with his family and can't behave. What if he'd take exception to an angel or a devil costume? Great example to set to his kids.

In your eyes spitting on someone is worse than characterizing Prophet Mohammed. In a Muslim's eyes, there is nothing worse than poking fun at the prophet and depicting him in a negative stereotype . Right or wrong, the insulted determines what is offensive to them, not the offender. In this case I'm not sure if anyone can claim to be the victim.

At what point did common decency become so unfashionable?

Yes, where has it gone? Wait, are we talking about the decency to avoid insulting a whole lot of people or the decency of not getting attacked while insulting a whole lot of people?

[mlmpetert]

[QUOTE=saden1;888587]
In your eyes spitting on someone is worse than characterizing Prophet Mohammed. In a Muslim's eyes, there is nothing worse than poking fun at the prophet and depicting him in a negative stereotype . Right or wrong, the insulted determines what is offensive to them, not the offender. In this case I'm not sure if anyone can claim to be the victim.
[QUOTE]

Not only is spitting on someone worse than dressing up as Zombie Mo in RedskinRat’s eyes but its considered worse by the law of our country’s eyes.

We value freedom of expression and speech over assault here in ‘Merica. Since you think the Muslim man was justified in his assault on the Atheist do you tolerate Honor Killings by shamed Muslim families? Imagine how horrible it must be to be shamed by your daughter if youre a Muslim family. I mean for Prophet Mo’s sake if a female were to cast shame on her Muslim family obviously the shamed would justify assaulting or killing her right.

In the Free World violence is only justified in defending our physical selves or others. You should know that.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Not only is spitting on someone worse than dressing up as Zombie Mo in RedskinRat’s eyes but its considered worse by the law of our country’s eyes.

As far as the law is concerned spitting on someone is Civil Battery and a 3rd degree misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. The state is highly unlikely to spend money perusing such a case and you're not going to get a penny suing for civil damages.

Now the question is if this guy were to dress up as Mohamed in front of a mosque in Michigan during Eid prayer could he be arrested and charged by local law enforcement for something? Incitement? Disturbing the peace, which is a misdemeanor?

We value freedom of expression and speech over assault here in ‘Merica. Since you think the Muslim man was justified in his assault on the Atheist do you tolerate Honor Killings by shamed Muslim families? Imagine how horrible it must be to be shamed by your daughter if youre a Muslim family. I mean for Prophet Mo’s sake if a female were to cast shame on her Muslim family obviously the shamed would justify assaulting or killing her right.

Over the years I have become lest tolerant of stupid people and hateful people. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You want to make fun of Mohammed? Go right ahead, but if I'm on the jury that decides if the guy who assaulted you walks, he's fcking walking.

In the Free World violence is only justified in defending our physical selves or others. You should know that.

Violence is justified when it suits us. That is the reality of the world and America/Americans are pretty damn good at it.