It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

page: 2
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Chickensalad
 


You know what, thanks to American Christian attitudes of late, I say good.
I am so sick of hearing right wingers cry about their religious freedom being trampled on no matter what it has to do with. How they run their medical facilities to what I CAN DO WITH MY BODY because THEIR RULES. Well, religious freedom is a many laned street.



+3 more 
posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Chickensalad
 
I'm a strong believer in protecting and adhering to the principles of religious freedoms.

But my (or anyone elses) religious freedoms end when they start to infringe on the freedoms of others.

Case in point, the man dressed as zombie mohammed was expressing his individual right to expression.

HIS rights were infringed upon.

The attacker has every right to believe what he wants to believe. But his rights end right before he attacks.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Chickensalad
 
I'm a strong believer in protecting and adhering to the principles of religious freedoms.

But my (or anyone elses) religious freedoms end when they start to infringe on the freedoms of others.




Pretty funny considering that there is not one Muslim law on the books that infringes on your freedom but there are several Christian laws on the books that infringe upon mine.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Chickensalad
 
I'm a strong believer in protecting and adhering to the principles of religious freedoms.

But my (or anyone elses) religious freedoms end when they start to infringe on the freedoms of others.




Pretty funny considering that there is not one Muslim law on the books that infringes on your freedom but there are several Christian laws on the books that infringe upon mine.


I'm not muslim, I could care less.
If you're not christian, who cares?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 





Pretty funny considering that there is not one Muslim law on the books that infringes on your freedom but there are several Christian laws on the books that infringe upon mine.


Well, I am no Christian, but his thread is about Muslims, yet both your posts were about Christians. Are you trying to derail the thread?

I think this decision definately is an infringement on freedom, and more.
edit on 25/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
We reap what we sow. We've allowed those in charge to change our own morals and beliefs and now we are approaching the tipping point that they wanted all along ... No resistance under the guise of discrimination, racism, liberalism and "religious equality".

A very small minority population can be the downfall of a nation once the laws and beliefs of the native population have been methodically manipulated to allow it. Particularly in a nation when the entire media is owned by a few players with an anti-Christ agenda. Indoctrination.

We've been had. From The Naked Communist as placed in the 1963 US Congressional Record
www.uhuh.com...


+11 more 
posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Making fun of someone's religion: Rude.
Assaulting someone for making fun of religion: Illegal.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Not having read the opinion rendered by the judge, I cannot know what his legal reasoning was, but there is precedent (sort of) in the matter of Chaplinski v New Hampshire that spawned the "fighting word doctrine" which presumed that certain words had the effect of "injury or harm" and as such are not "protected by the First Amendment right to speech". The judge has case law on his side.

I am of the mind, particularly in this modern age where words clearly have no meaning at all and what was once "hot" as in a rise in temperature now also means "cool" as in "hot". The word myth, since time immemorial meant nothing more than a specific tale of origin or a hero's tale, but today it means "falsehood". "Gay" once meant to be happy and joyful, but is generally now a word that belongs to a specific sexual orientation. Words, words, words, they are meaningless.

When I was a child we learned this: "Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words can never harm me." Sadly, there is no case law to support that contention.




Did you read the syllabus you just posted?

That is not precedent to this case at all, that is precedent to purposeful intent. I.E. The language used in that case was used purposefully to escalate a reaction. He did not violate free speech, however, he used free speech to purposefully cause an assault.

Essentially, it's like me walking up to you begging you to hit me, so when you finally hit me -- I call the police.


This is nothing like the case in question, and as such -- this case law has no bearing or affect on precedent to the case in question.


The case in question has to do with a costume choice in a Halloween parade.... how you think that is even remotely similar to the case you cited amuses me.

It's not like these kids were randomly standing on the side of the street in mocking attire to purposefully insult people.


The judge also shows disregard to context with his comments on a "Risen Mohammed."

Mohammed if he lived would be dead. It was Halloween. America has a zombie culture in entertainment.

Halloween = create costume.

Live in America, chances are a Zombie comes to mind as a costume. The next question goes something like this...


"I wanna be a zombie, but which one do I want to be?"

Zombie Mohammed is no different than Zombie Heath Ledger.

It's a Halloween costume for christ sake. You don't beat people up over a Halloween Costume.

Ever.
edit on 25-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BellaSabre
 


the most truthful, straight-to-the-point post yet



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
When I first read this thread it reminded me of a South Dakota case years ago where a man was convicted of a "crime" because he screamed "F-Bomb Cop" out at a police officer as he drove by. The police officer arrested the man for disorderly conduct. That man was convicted at trial and no doubt the prosecution relied upon Chaplinski v. New Hampshire to justify their prosecution of this man, but in appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed that conviction.

The case is State v. Suhn. The full text can be read at that link. Here is a brief quote by the Justice who explained why they reversed that conviction:


Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that in order for speech to fall within the “fighting words” exception, the words by their very utterance have to “tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” under the circumstances of the case.  Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S.Ct. at 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031.   Suhn's words do not meet the exception.   Although it may not be necessary to show that those who hear the words are actually provoked to violence, a telling commentary as to how “ordinary citizens” would likely react was how the people standing on Main Avenue in Brookings did react.   The crowd merely responded with facial expressions of disbelief.


Part of the "fighting words doctrine" includes the principle that certain words are so injurious as to cause "ordinary citizens" to react violently. Justice Meierhenry, however, makes a salient point that it was only the cop who reacted violently and everyone else who hear the F-Bomb reacted far more peaceably. If this Muslim was the only "ordinary citizen" among many present who attacked the zombie Mohammad, and taken with what the S. Dakota Supreme Court have determined regarding the fighting words doctrine, even if the Judge who is allegedly a convert to Islam did rely upon the fighting words doctrine, it is feasible, assuming it actually made it the Supreme Court for the United States of America, that the SCOTUS would have to reconsider their own fighting words doctrine and either add more clarity to it, or reverse the Chaplinski ruling all together.

Of course, this is coming from the presumption that even zombie Mohammad's have natural and unalienable rights and therefore have standing in a court of law. Many would disagree that zombie Mohammad's who are not "citizens" of the United States have the same rights as "citizens" do, but it appears as if this zombie Mohammad is actually a "citizen" so I guess that point is moot. Maybe if it were a Klingon marching in a parade dressed as zombie Mohammad, since that Klingon is probably an "illegal alien" then there are some who would argue that this Klingon does not share the same rights as "American citizens".

I am of the mind that zombie Mohammad's, Klingon's, and that cute little E.T. with the long glowing fingers have the same rights as any human does and that all humans share the same rights. Of those universal rights, there is the absolute right to speak freely in any manner that does not demonstrably cause harm.

The judge threw the case out because it was a municipal action taken against the hot tempered Muslim who likes to scream "Them's fightin' words, Pilgrim!" Had the zombie Mohammad filed a verified complaint under penalty of perjury, that judge could not have thrown out the case without stepping outside of the scope of his jurisdiction. As it is, it is hard to tell if the judge did step outside that scope of jurisdiction, but had that zombie been awake enough to file a verified complaint, regardless of what the judge might think, he would have had a lawful obligation to see the complaint goes to trial.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Chickensalad


Judge Martins remarks before throwing out the case.

In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”


Wonder what would have happened if it was a gay person that was attack by a Muslim. Would he have used the same example?
edit on 25-2-2012 by Carseller4 because: (no reason given)



Great point but that being said the D.A. Should appeal,this judges decision and further report him to the state Judiciary committee . I really don't see this judge not getting in hot water over his actions .



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


thank you for your input. and i gotta say, Im glad you stepped into this thread. I appreciate a look at the issue from a legal stand-point, rather than sensationalism. of course, this subject is goin to cause a rift of sorts to some. but, i didn't post this to cause an argument between religions, I merely saw a legal and social quandry and wanted some real debate on the topic. you sir, have made major contributions in that aspect and i thank you.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

I'm not muslim, I could care less.
If you're not christian, who cares?


I care. Why would I not care?
You would not care if I imposed my religious laws on you then?

Did you read what you responded to? Why would I have to be Christian to care? If I were Christian, I would like it.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 





That is not precedent to this case at all, that is precedent to purposeful intent. I.E. The language used in that case was used purposefully to escalate a reaction. He did not violate free speech, however, he used free speech to purposefully cause an assault.


Chaplinski was convicted for calling a government official a "fascist". You, as the Supreme Court did once, can claim that words like "fascist" are intended to escalate a reaction, but your claim that dressing up as a zombie Mohammad is far more innocuous is nonsensical. Further, I have read plenty of your posts that strike me as being with the full on intent of escalating a reaction, and I have been accused of doing the same. Yet, here we are, you and I, quibbling over what is an escalation of reaction "fascist" or dressing up as a zombie Mohammad.

Both are, in my mind, absolute rights, but then again...I'm not a fascist.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by beezzer

I'm not muslim, I could care less.
If you're not christian, who cares?


I care. Why would I not care?
You would not care if I imposed my religious laws on you then?

Did you read what you responded to? Why would I have to be Christian to care? If I were Christian, I would like it.


What do your posts have to do with the topic?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Well, I am no Christian, but his thread is about Muslims, yet both your posts were about Christians. Are you trying to derail the thread?


No, you are wrong.

Both my posts are about Muslims. Please read them again. They take place in the context of hypocritical Christian America. Sorry if that is complicated to you.


I think this decision definately is an infringement on freedom, and more.
edit on 25/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


Oh well. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You cannot spend time insisting your religion be held above all else just because it is A religion without someone else attempting to do the same with theirs and borrow your defense to do it.

Christians created this atmosphere and I feel the Muslims and anyone else should fully embrace it while they can until you all get sick of trying to implement theocracy in the states and get over it.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BellaSabre
Making fun of someone's religion: Rude.
Assaulting someone for making fun of religion: Illegal.


Well, while I certainly agree with your premise, we apparently have at least one judge that feels we are wrong. I dearly hope he's the ONLY one!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


So, on topic...Your saying that if the Muslim judge can find legal precedence to push his Sharia Law agenda, then he should? Claiming its a Christian based legal system founded on religious freedom?

Because, if thats what your trying to say between you two bickering, then i can understand that. Please just remember to debate, and not attack each other.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chickensalad
reply to post by LErickson
 


So, on topic...Your saying that if the Muslim judge can find legal precedence to push his Sharia Law agenda, then he should? Claiming its a Christian based legal system founded on religious freedom?

Because, if thats what your trying to say between you two bickering, then i can understand that. Please just remember to debate, and not attack each other.


It's a freedom of speech issue, not a religious one.

The costume wearer had his rights violated.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Don't fret, burning the flag is till legal

Something doesn't sound right with the whole case. assault is still assault, regardless of any religion or anything else for that matter.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join