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...