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 22:32:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <vql4th$uuum$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqksel$t6n1$1@dont-email.me> <vqktku$tkdp$1@dont-email.me> <vql1mo$u8ri$2@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 23:32:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4de7f091fd7708c5c8fcee489bc87c2f";
	logging-data="1014742"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KFipPas1smkRkHPCXd93d"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WtN4RaZwyjiTNVb2Zf/Gq/D/RM0=
Bytes: 7782

On Mar 9, 2025 at 2:37:27 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 3/9/2025 4:28 PM, BTR1701 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.
> 
> No, I said that she was *arrested for* illegal subsequent actions, not
> that she committed any.

That's calling her actions illegal. They were not. You were being manipulative
and inflammatory.

> Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt.  E.g.,:

But if you characterize a person's actions as illegal when they're not, you're
being manipulative and inflammatory.
> 
>>  But making a purported statement of fact that her post was illegal
>>  was manipulative and inflammatory.
> 
> No, it *would* have been, had it happened outside your imagination.

It was because it happened in reality.