Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Jewish Journalist Arrested for Objecting to Islamic Terror Symbol in Grocery Store
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:54:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <vqkv69$tkvi$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqkmlq$s7ni$1@dont-email.me> <vqksel$t6n1$1@dont-email.me> <vqktku$tkdp$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 21:54:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed2b636fda764a95af50141a4eded789";
	logging-data="971762"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YGE2kpYnVTz+A2TS2BpYckbjIl8TLHAA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sHvVXrGav/R5boyGsHCrpVlk/Tc=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 7490

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Mar 9, 2025 at 1:07:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>  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.
>> 
>> No, I was *always* referring to the crime.  Presumably, this is the 
>> passage you find erroneous:
>> 
>>      ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal -- 
>> actions in pursuing her objection.
>
>Exactly. Her actions being the post to social media. You called her post
>illegal, when it factually and objectively was not, something you'd been
>informed of repeatedly at that point in the thread.
>
>> Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt.
>
>But making a purportedly statement of fact that her post was illegal was
>manipulative and inflammatory.

This means... moviePig is guilty of violating moviePig law! How many
years in prison is the minimum sentence?