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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

FR

The judge was in the wrong and should be removed from the bench and disbarred.
The muslim was in the wrong and should face the usual criminal penalties for his actions.
The atheist, at most, acted in bad taste well inside his legal rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

FR

The judge was in the wrong and should be removed from the bench and disbarred.
The muslim was in the wrong and should face the usual criminal penalties for his actions.
The atheist, at most, acted in bad taste well inside his legal rights.

Ken, did you read my posts and links?

The judge was not in the wrong. He did not have evidence of an attack, so he was forced to acquit.
The Muslim may have been in the wrong but was not proven guilty. So he was not charged.
The atheist was not charged with anything, just lectured. So he was not considered to have acted outside his legal rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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?

Outside of the judge's poor choice of words, nothing happened to the perp. He did indeed have the right; he was indeed acting like a doofus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

FR

The judge was in the wrong and should be removed from the bench and disbarred.
The muslim was in the wrong and should face the usual criminal penalties for his actions.
The atheist, at most, acted in bad taste well inside his legal rights.

Ken, did you read my posts and links?

The judge was not in the wrong. He did not have evidence of an attack, so he was forced to acquit.
The Muslim may have been in the wrong but was not proven guilty. So he was not charged.
The atheist was not charged with anything, just lectured. So he was not considered to have acted outside his legal rights.

The judge made at least part of the reason for his dismissal the lawful conduct of the atheist which is unacceptable.
The judge was still far outside his authority and should be removed from the bench and disbarred.

The video proves the muslim assaulted the atheist and therefore should face the usual criminal penalties for his behavior and that ignores the fact that eyewitnesses to the battery were available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

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.

Putting your hands on someone is criminal assault or the tort of battery and it is NOT constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Yelling fire in a crowded theater can result in people being trampled to death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Yelling fire in a crowded theater can result in people being trampled to death.

Now there is a whole can of worms, Boi. If we make it a policy that insulting a particular religion meets that "fire" in a crowded theater standard, aren't we violating the part of the First about a law respecting an establishment of religion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Yelling fire in a crowded theater can result in people being trampled to death.

Now there is a whole can of worms, Boi. If we make it a policy that insulting a particular religion meets that "fire" in a crowded theater standard, aren't we violating the part of the First about a law respecting an establishment of religion?

When you cry fire, there is a chance someone will be accidentally killed when the people in the theater panic. In the case of insulting anothers religion, the fear is they will be offended and get violent. In the first case, no one intended on hurting anyone else, in the second case they did. That makes a big difference to me.