"Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TheHeretic -> "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 8:30:17 PM)

There are a number of versions of this story floating around, unfortunately. It's a shame when such a concern gets smothered in bullshit, but that does seem to be the nature of discourse these days. Let's just go with the facts, and I'll refrain from calling each of the players douchebags in the course of doing that, or offering my personal thoughts in the basic narrative.

A couple of atheists decided to participate in a Halloween parade dressed as Zombie Pope, and Zombie Muhammed. They had the video camera rolling as they did so. An immigrant of the Islamic persuasion got offended, told Zombie Muhammed he was going to call the cops, and put his hands on Zombie Muhammed. Case goes to court, where the judge proceeds to throw out the charges against the Muslim, and lectures the atheist, including making the statement I used for the thread title, telling the atheist that he was, "way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights."

Basic factual narrative out of the way, I'll now add that I think the atheists were douchebags looking to offend, the Islamically persuaded immigrant was a douchebag for being so ignorant of the ways of the country he chose to come to, and the judge is the biggest douchebag of them all, and should be removed from the bench.

Simply put, I think the First Amendment covers the right to be a deliberately offensive "doofus," as the judge also chose to call the atheist. What say you?



erieangel -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 8:36:25 PM)

I say that with rights come responsibilities. And those responsibilities include taking into consideration how others might perceive a particular action, deed or word. When one acts grossly irresponsibly, one forfeits his/her rights under the 1st and needs to suffer whatever consequences there may be.




SternSkipper -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 8:51:11 PM)

quote:

I say that with rights come responsibilities. And those responsibilities include taking into consideration how others might perceive a particular action, deed or word. When one acts grossly irresponsibly, one forfeits his/her rights under the 1st and needs to suffer whatever consequences there may be.


Is this another Rush/protected speech thread?

The cons are missing something ABSOLUTELY HUGE invoking "the 1st" on this one.
It's OF COURSE a free speech issue... just not the way they think.



MrRodgers -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 9:00:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

I say that with rights come responsibilities. And those responsibilities include taking into consideration how others might perceive a particular action, deed or word. When one acts grossly irresponsibly, one forfeits his/her rights under the 1st and needs to suffer whatever consequences there may be.


Is this another Rush/protected speech thread?

The cons are missing something ABSOLUTELY HUGE invoking "the 1st" on this one.
It's OF COURSE a free speech issue... just not the way they think.


It is a free speech issue, that they are atheists, totally irrelevant. The judge should be at least censured if not removed.

Hell, people were offended by their perception of my anti-war protests. Fuck 'em, I forfeit no such rights.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 9:00:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Simply put, I think the First Amendment covers the right to be a deliberately offensive "doofus," as the judge also chose to call the atheist. What say you?



It sickens me to watch vids of the KKK marching down the street and spewing their hate, for example, but I'll defend their right to do so -- within the bounds of the law, anyway.




kdsub -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 9:07:10 PM)

Did he just lecture him or charge him with a crime?...If a lecture then the judge was just doing what you would have done...don't you think?

Butch



BitaTruble -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 9:07:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

...put his hands on Zombie Muhammed. Case goes to court, where the judge proceeds to throw out the charges against the Muslim


Did the judge say why he threw out the case or do you have a link I can read? Putting your hands on someone is, generally, a no-no so until there is further info, I'll have to refrain from forming an opinion one way or another. If it was thrown out due to a technicality I would have a different opinion than say if it was thrown out because of some other reason.

As to whether or not the 1st allows one to be a doofus.. yes, generally it does allow for that very thing but it certainly does not allow for one to place their hands on another.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 9:19:57 PM)

You and the ACLU! Imagine that.
Judges say and do "non judicious" things all time. And he was wrong about the boundaries of the first. Too bad no one will be appealing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic




It sickens me to watch vids of the KKK marching down the street and spewing their hate, for example, but I'll defend their right to do so -- within the bounds of the law, anyway.





SternSkipper -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 9:26:47 PM)

quote:

It is a free speech issue, that they are atheists, totally irrelevant. The judge should be at least censured if not removed.

Hell, people were offended by their perception of my anti-war protests. Fuck 'em, I forfeit no such rights.


Ah ... They're "Learnin Us" with parables now.... niiiiiiice



TheHeretic -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 9:51:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
do you have a link I can read?



I didn't include one in the first post on purpose, Bita. The atheist released unauthorized audio from the courtroom, and the thing came out as an accusation that the judge was a Muslim, acting in accordance with sharia law.

There is an account in from the LA Times Op-ed page, that still isn't just a straight reporting of the facts, but it will do.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-criminalizing-speech-20120309,0,3460649.story



BitaTruble -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 9:59:25 PM)

Thanks for the link - if true, then I agree with you, TheHeretic ... judge wins top douchebag award of this little trio.



Hillwilliam -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 10:12:27 PM)

Fast reply to the OP.

I think we have a trifecta of douchebags.

That said. Sorry folks, it is protected speech. It is not a terroristic threat (joking about bombs in front of the TSA), nor is it something that puts people in danger of life and limb. (yelling 'fire' in a movie theater)



DaddySatyr -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/12/2012 11:51:02 PM)

No doubt about it. That was a bad day for A) The First Amendment 2) Lovers of the Constitution C) Atheists D) Muslims E) Judges

It is, however, an interesting study; to me, anyway.

Of course these guys have a right to be offensive but what does that get you?

Of course the Muslim has a right to be offended but he went to "violence"

I was going to say that the judge has a right to be completely ignorant of how the laws work. Then, I thought: "No. I shouldn't say that" So, here's what you guys are left with after my self-censorship:

The judge has every right to be completely ignorant of the law but, he has the right to do it while saying: "Do you want fries with that?"; not while lecturing people on where they went wrong (when they didn't).



Peace and comfort,



Michael



erieangel -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/13/2012 12:36:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

I say that with rights come responsibilities. And those responsibilities include taking into consideration how others might perceive a particular action, deed or word. When one acts grossly irresponsibly, one forfeits his/her rights under the 1st and needs to suffer whatever consequences there may be.


Is this another Rush/protected speech thread?

The cons are missing something ABSOLUTELY HUGE invoking "the 1st" on this one.
It's OF COURSE a free speech issue... just not the way they think.


It is a free speech issue, that they are atheists, totally irrelevant. The judge should be at least censured if not removed.

Hell, people were offended by their perception of my anti-war protests. Fuck 'em, I forfeit no such rights.



Being involved in a peaceful protest, of any kind, is not irresponsible. Falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is irresponsible. And calling a young woman a "slut" on national radio is irresponsible.




DaddySatyr -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/13/2012 12:53:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Being involved in a peaceful protest, of any kind, is not irresponsible. Falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is irresponsible. And calling a young woman a "slut" on national radio is irresponsible.



So, where do you stand on calling a lady a "dumb twat" on national TV? Or calling a lady a "right wing slut" on the same venue?



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Winterapple -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/13/2012 1:12:51 AM)

Radicalism isn't a demon it's radical.
One definition of radical is favoring or
effecting basic changes. Another is drastic
or extreme. All parties have their extremists
arguments could be made they serve a purpose.
The extremist in the Democratic party have
little influence and aren't and never been
behind the wheel. On the other the Republican
middle ground, the moderates if the party
are fighting for their lives.
Bill Maher isn't a dangerous man.
He's a comedian who sometimes says
stinging/crude things.

He's successful enough to give a million
dollars away. So what? People can do
what they want to with their money.
He doesn't have the influence over the
Democratic electorate that Rush has over
the republicans. He doesn't have the influence
Stewart and Colbert have.
Why do you assume he's going to go first?



GrandPoobah -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/13/2012 2:13:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I say that with rights come responsibilities. And those responsibilities include taking into consideration how others might perceive a particular action, deed or word. When one acts grossly irresponsibly, one forfeits his/her rights under the 1st and needs to suffer whatever consequences there may be.




While I agree that Freedom of Speech comes with "freedom to enjoy the results of said speech" that doesn't mean all other laws regarding decent behavior are suspended for anyone you offend. If someone is wearing a tee shirt with words you find offensive, you have the right to be offended. You might even feel you have the right to say so. You do not, however, suddenly gain the right to beat the crap out of them, or, for that matter, even "get physical" with them. That is still "assault" and carries it's own penalties.

Yes, people use Freedom of Speech in hateful and despicable ways, but that doesn't mean anything other than their social skills are sadly lacking.



DarkSteven -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/13/2012 3:53:32 AM)

Tricky. The famous argument is about yelling Fire in a crowded movie theater. This is analogous, in which the atheist was doing something that had the potential to cause violence.

Obviously, the Muslim broke the law in assaulting the atheist, as well as in threatening to call the police for something legal, which counted as intimidation. I'd split the blame about 70%-30%, mostly going to the Muslim.

Odd that:

1. One Muslim chose to mock the Islamic messiah, and the other chose to mock the Pope and not Jesus.
2. The Catholics did not respond with violence to their displeasure.



DarkSteven -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/13/2012 4:39:10 AM)

Additional info here.

Per the article, the judge dismissed charges against the Muslim due to lack of evidence. Entirely reasonable.

The atheist, Perce, appears to be a shit-stirrer. He recorded the alleged attack (if it was me, I'd be more concerned about the fight than recording it), and then recorded what he alleged was the judge's decision. That's contempt, and if I was the judge, he'd be getting hauled into court for that.

Per this source, the alleged recording has the judge claiming he's a Muslim as reason for dismissing the charges. The judge has since stated that he's a Christian, and that he never made those statements in court.

I suspect that some of the activists screaming about the possibility of US courts adopting Sharia law may have a hand behind the scenes.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: "Way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights." (3/13/2012 5:28:19 AM)

Both are absolutely deplorable. Vulgarity like that is why I don't watch TV. It is a vast wasteland, you know.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
.



So, where do you stand on calling a lady a "dumb twat" on national TV? Or calling a lady a "right wing slut" on the same venue?



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875