Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Jewish Journalist Arrested for Objecting to Islamic Terror Symbol
 in Grocery Store
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:42:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vqia3e$a7bg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqfllr$3nd8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <1741415227-1263@newsgrouper.org> <vqi04f$7s9i$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqi5ai$9bfp$2@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 21:42:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0429a550d97ad904fe3959becaeb8cc9";
	logging-data="335216"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+taMjrUcCYaghMQwOHd2VryLGH41kV1rc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G5Oyvwa4FkSaburabUJ8L7rhi2w=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqi5ai$9bfp$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3766

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>   
>>>>   moviePig
>>>>>   BTR1701
>>>>>
>>>>>   Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
>>>>>   reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of
>>>>>   cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech
>>>>>   and press freedom.
>>>>
>>>>   Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
>>>>   Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
>>>>   Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.
>>>   
>>>   Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the event
>>>   we happen to be commenting on.
>>
>> Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:
>>
>>      The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was
>> arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
>> But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance,
>> anyway -- happily alive and well.  She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting'
>> (which occurred at the store).  Rather, she was arrested for subsequent
>> -- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.
> 
> Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action-- posting
> about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As evidenced
> by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment and the 200+
> years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district
> attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was 
arrested for ...and not for "objecting".


>> (And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and
>> inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed
>> to provoke issue.)
> 
> A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in calling it
> ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the
> woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him in this
> thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was 1st
> Amendment-protected speech.
> 
> Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely inflammatory. 

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*, I leave that to attorneys. 
Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.