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: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:24:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <vqn77j$1f63i$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqcu84$33k3l$3@dont-email.me> <vql1mo$u8ri$2@dont-email.me> <vql4th$uuum$1@dont-email.me> <vqn3a3$1e7me$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:24:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="050d8e5438413d9874ace85417496963";
	logging-data="1546354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Jk93vvZxyFm+J0jcz+lnu"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mKnK14FywAWb+oapcFBm3jD3tME=
Bytes: 8624

On Mar 10, 2025 at 9:17:06 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 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...

Behold the irony.