Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Jewish Journalist Arrested for Objecting to Islamic Terror Symbol in Grocery Store
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:57:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <vqib0c$aioi$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqi04f$7s9i$2@dont-email.me> <vqi5ai$9bfp$2@dont-email.me> <vqia3e$a7bg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 21:57:49 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99217914ffc9e8beace1b617b02e0234";
	logging-data="346898"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mragSj3YMOZugcD7j0uXa"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YdrS4q83AyxlRfR42xbp5GXWOWg=
Bytes: 4052

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 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

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

>  ...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*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

> Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself.