Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Jewish Journalist Arrested for Objecting to Islamic Terror Symbol
 in Grocery Store
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 16:43:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 227
Message-ID: <vqd4ue$354sa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 22:43:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="85739176e20b280c0d563ac9d6826ed0";
	logging-data="3314570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191ozB8w8GMdKOmGcn6gPbj+tHBCY6KnUg="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jlO3o16QBfVoF6FBYn7I/Lc5h90=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250306-6, 3/6/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 2025-03-06 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 
> https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/
> 
> Sloan Rachmuth, a Jewish journalist and political commentator, was arrested at
> her home in front of her terrified children on November 3, 2024. Her alleged
> crime? According to Rachmuth, she objected to a supermarket employee at Harris
> Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh, a political symbol widely
> associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the Jewish
> people worldwide.
> 
> Rachmuth, an outspoken advocate against antisemitism and a contributor to
> national media outlets on Middle Eastern affairs, explained to RAIR Foundation
> in an exclusive interview that she was handcuffed, marched through her
> neighborhood, and charged with cyberstalking after she posted about the
> troubling incident online.
> 
> Rachmuth explained the police never asked for her side of the story, nor
> investigated the credibility of the alleged victim. Her arrest was based
> solely on an unverified accusation, raising serious concerns about law
> enforcement's complicity in this apparent retaliation.
> 
> Rather than uphold its corporate attire and political expression policies,
> Harris Teeter-- a subsidiary of The Kroger Co., the largest supermarket chain
> in America-- ignored its regulations. Indeed, Harris Teeter allowed an
> employee to wear a threatening symbol of Islamic and Palestinian terrorism,
> visibly wrapping it around her head while working with customers.
> 
> Rachmuth describes this as not just corporate censorship or police overreach
> but state-backed antisemitic persecution and the criminalization of those who
> publicly object to terror support and antisemitism.
> 
> On October 31, 2024, Rachmuth entered Harris Teeter on Sunset Lake Road in
> Holly Springs, NC, a store where she had shopped regularly for seven years.
> According to Rachmuth, as she checked out, she noticed an employee handling
> food while wearing a keffiyeh-- a garment long associated with the Palestinian
> Liberation Organization (PLO) and frequently worn by Hamas militants and
> supporters. In America, the keffiyeh has been used as a rallying icon for
> violence against Jews during demonstrations. Even countries like the United
> Arab Emirates and Egypt-- both Arab nations-- have banned its political use,
> recognizing its ties to Islamic terror groups.
> 
> Aware of its political significance, Rachmuth says she politely asked the
> employee, Amira M. Fattah, "It's Halloween; are you wearing this as a
> costume?" Fattah replied, "No, it's for Free Palestine," confirming she wore
> the keffiyeh as a political statement rather than for religious reasons.
> 
> As a Jewish woman and a longtime customer, Rachmuth was deeply uncomfortable
> with a store employee openly supporting an ideology that symbolized the
> destruction of Israel and the Jewish people while handling food. While at the
> store, Rachmuth escalated her concerns to store manager Sheronna Irick,
> expecting Harris Teeter to uphold its policies against political speech in the
> workplace.
> 
> Instead of addressing the hostile work environment created by an employee
> wearing a symbol of Jewish oppression, Irick dismissed Rachmuth's complaint
> outright and told her, "Like it or leave."
> 
> Realizing that the store manager was indifferent to the issue, Rachmuth
> contacted Harris Teeter's corporate office to inform them of what had
> occurred.
> 
> Frustrated by the store manager's hostile response, Rachmuth turned to social
> media and posted about the encounter on X (formerly Twitter). She included a
> photo of the employee wearing the keffiyeh--showing only the employee's
> profile-- along with a caption questioning the corporation's stance on
> political speech in the workplace.
> 
> The post quickly gained traction, sparking widespread debate about corporate
> complicity in antisemitism. Rather than address the concern, Harris Teeter's
> employees escalated the situation by calling the police in what appears to be
> an act of retaliation against a customer.
> 
> According to arrest records and law enforcement, store manager Sheronna Irick
> played a pivotal role in facilitating this retaliation and made it clear that
> the Harris Teeter manager's actions directly enabled Rachmuth's
> falsely-charged arrest.
> 
> Three days after Rachmuth's X post, Holly Springs Police officers-- Elliott
> Warren, Benjamin Marino, and Edgar Hernandez-- arrived at Rachmuth's home and
> began pounding on her door.
> 
> To understand how this politically motivated arrest unfolded, examining events
> leading up to it is important.
> 
> A Timeline of the Political Arrest
> 
> October 31, 2024: Rachmuth reports that she noticed a Harris Teeter employee
> wearing a keffiyeh, questioned her about it, and later posted images on social
> media.
> 
> November 2, 2024: Holly Springs Police took a report from the employee and
> store manager, who alleged that Rachmuth called her a terrorist in the store--
> an accusation Rachmuth vehemently denies.
> 
> The incident report officially labeled the case as ANTI-ISLAMIC (MUSLIM),
> suggesting that law enforcement intentionally framed the situation as a
> bias-motivated offense. This classification raises serious concerns about
> whether police exaggerated or misrepresented the nature of the allegations to
> justify Rachmuth's arrest. If Rachmuth's concern over a political symbol was
> rebranded as a 'hate crime', does this mean that simply objecting to
> Hamas-affiliated imagery is now considered a criminal act? The implications of
> such a designation are chilling-- especially given that there was no
> investigation into whether the allegations against her were truthful.
> 
> November 3, 2024: Officer Elliott Warren obtained an arrest warrant, accusing
> Rachmuth of using her cellphone to "harass, embarrass, or terrify" the
> employee.
> 
> Later that day: Police arrived at her home with an arrest warrant in hand,
> leading to what many believe was an effort to humiliate her publicly.
> 
> Rachmuth, a mother of two, says she was shocked and confused by the officers'
> presence. When she demanded the reason for her arrest, Officer Benjamin Marino
> chillingly replied, "Something you did made her uncomfortable, all right?"
> 
> Rachmuth's arrest video shows she was then handcuffed with no questions asked.
> She says the police paraded her through her neighborhood before taking her to
> Wake County Jail. Adding to the cruelty of the arrest, this occurred on her
> 17th wedding anniversary, as her terrified children, concerned husband and
> protective German Shepherd watched helplessly.
> 
> Rachmuth states that despite the alleged crime being an unarrestable
> misdemeanor, she was forced to pay a $1,000 cash bail-- a sum typically
> reserved for serious offenses-- and was treated like a violent criminal during
> the booking process.
> 
> Democratic activists and their media swiftly circulated her mugshot and charge
> sheet online, weaponizing the arrest as a political smear campaign. Major
> left-wing outlets, including The Independent, The Intercept, MSN, Daily Mail,
> and other partisan publications, immediately jumped on the bandwagon,
> launching coordinated attacks against Rachmuth. They spread her mugshot far
> and wide, framing her as a villain-- without even attempting to reach out to
> her for comment.
> 
> This rapid media blitz has left many questioning who contacted the media so
> swiftly and how they were able to mobilize coverage within hours of her
> arrest. Just as questions linger over who at Harris Teeter initially called
> the police, suspicions are growing that this was not an organic reaction but
> rather a carefully coordinated effort to weaponize the criminal justice system
> against a Jewish journalist. Many believe this was a deliberate, politically
> motivated attack meant to silence and intimidate her-- setting a dangerous
> precedent for anyone daring to expose antisemitism or radical extremism in
> America.
> 
> The charge against Rachmuth-- cyberstalking-- has no legal precedent or
> justification. The accusation alleged that she used her phone to take a photo
> with the intent to embarrass someone-- an assertion unsupported by any state
> or federal law and one that raises serious 1st Amendment concerns.
> 
> Even Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman, a Democrat, acknowledged
> the blatant injustice of the case and dropped all charges the next day,
> stating that the alleged conduct did not even come close to meeting the
> elements of the offense.
> 
> However, this charge's legal overreach and selective enforcement remain deeply
> troubling. North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires
> repeated electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy,
> threaten, or harass" an individual. Rachmuth's single post about a store
> policy does not meet this legal threshold. Nor was Rachmuth's post directed
> *at* the employee as the statute requires. It was *about* the employee but not
> sent *to* the employee in any way. Furthermore, legal precedents in State v.
> Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced the principle
> that vague and overly broad interpretations of online speech statutes violate
> constitutional protections of free speech and press freedom.
> 
> If this charge had moved forward, it would have set a chilling precedent for
> journalists, activists, and citizens engaged in lawful political speech. The
> case raises serious questions about lawfare and the use of activist law
> enforcement to target political dissenters.
> 
> While Freeman ultimately dropped the charges, the fact that the Holly Springs
> Police Department pursued them in the first place-- despite clear
> constitutional and procedural concerns-- demonstrates the selective
> weaponization of the law to intimidate and silence individuals exposing
> antisemitism and Islamic radicalism. The police department has yet to
> acknowledge any wrongdoing in Rachmuth's case.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========