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: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:29:14 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <vqkmlq$s7ni$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqihk0$bnf6$1@dont-email.me> <vqik7p$cbli$1@dont-email.me> <vqkhm1$qrf2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 19:29:15 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4de7f091fd7708c5c8fcee489bc87c2f";
	logging-data="925426"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IRe95bOW/fhskahwLi9f/"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fkT3AeE1AtukG/B8mH37+B/f45A=
Bytes: 6050

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 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?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was illegal. It
factually and objectively was not.