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: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:04:01 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <vqkhm1$qrf2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqia3e$a7bg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqib0c$aioi$2@dont-email.me> <vqihk0$bnf6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqik7p$cbli$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 18:04:02 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d031f46062d8c6c78f701b30a6f4755";
	logging-data="880098"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/tmXqqFP+/YxjuI541ZGahjBdg7+AgUAI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jk/OwuJK65OO+T0NQkYWZOn0XcU=
In-Reply-To: <vqik7p$cbli$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5739

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   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.
>>
>> I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' is a crime.
> 
> And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her post did not meet
> any of elements of the crime and that even if it had, it still wouldn't be
> criminal because it's protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your continued
> characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was arrested for, 
i.e., 'cyberstalking'.  No doubt she'd welcome your amicus curiae.


>> Was Google wrong?
> 
> If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected speech, then yes, Google
> was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus unlikely to 
have anything whatsoever to say about her.  What Google did say is that 
'cyberstalking' is a crime.  Was Google wrong?


>>>>   Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.
>>>   
>>>   But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself.
>>
>> What word(s) did I change to invent drama?
> 
> You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?