Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vqn3a3$1e7me$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: 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: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 12:17:06 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 168 Message-ID: <vqn3a3$1e7me$2@dont-email.me> References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vqksel$t6n1$1@dont-email.me> <vqktku$tkdp$1@dont-email.me> <vql1mo$u8ri$2@dont-email.me> <vql4th$uuum$1@dont-email.me> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:17:08 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="da5556ee00167210c19fab7d731c1b70"; logging-data="1515214"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FHm9jEjq4JPqu5ZGy3IOTjrVtfBHSJkk=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:J8P493i9ebdOwqpXOrSUrtv3Kj4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vql4th$uuum$1@dont-email.me> On 3/9/2025 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > 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. Do stick to those guns. You have a another foot...