Parody, which is what it sounds like, has been upheld as an example of free speech. This judge has lost his nuts.
As for atheists, they are persecuted by every religion b/c people believe that if you don't have form of religious guidance you cannot have morals.
That judge needs to watch some South Park.
"You know, when they came and took away my fourth amendment I kept my yap shut, what the hell, I really didnít have anything to hide anyway. When they grabbed up my second amendment I sat still and bit my tongue because, truth be told, Iím allergic to guns. But here we are, you with your cold hard fingers wrapped around the neck of my first amendment and Iíve got to shout as loud as I can, because if I donít, before you know it, you wonít let me say nothing at all"
--Randolph J. Dworkin
ďReading makes a full man, meditation a profound man, discourse a clear man.Ē
-- Ben Franklin
"It has been said that something as small as the flutter of a butterfly's wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world"
-- Chaos Theory
He is trying to piss people off.
Does the 1st amendment protect someone being a jackass?
Then, the SOB has the gall to bring the muslim to court?? I'm glad that petty garbage got thrown out.
It's not like he was stabbed or shot.
Put me down for siding with the judge on this one. "Doofus" is a lot milder than what I would have called him.
Last edited by Peter Grimm; 02-25-12 at 12:50 AM.
Last edited by danarhea; 02-25-12 at 12:53 AM.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
Probably, but it's still illegal to do the honors, and whoever decides that justice is best dealt on the street and decides to kick someones ass for offending them deserves jail time. If he really believes that violent confrontation is the right thing to do, then he should take his jail time in stride.
> Seriously, what good reason does someone have for going out and demonstrating dressed in a Zombie Muhammed costume?
Doesn't need one.
> Does the 1st amendment protect someone being a jackass?
It's not the judges job to decide who's an asshole and who's not. That's not what the court is here for. The judge was in err. His personal opinion of the parties in the court are irrelevant and must not be considered, along with his opinions on religion.
First, there's a natural process through which people are socialized. If someone is displaying asocial behavior (like running around naked covered in green jell-o), society will naturally self-correct this behavior. Someone who displays anti-social behavior will be shunned, mocked, and sometimes beaten by community members.
What this atheist was doing was clearly anti-social behavior. In other words, he was being a jackass. What happened to him was predictable, natural, and deserved.
My second point is that our legal system has limited resources.
We know that the atheist was asking for confrontation.
We know that the muslim never actually touched him, he tried to rip the sign from off the atheist's neck.
We know the atheist was not injured, didn't require a hospital stay, and had no damage done to his person.
Thus, common sense tells us he is wasting taxpayer dollars, and wasting the valuable time and resources of the judiciary.
Not only should this case have been thrown out, the atheist should be stuck with the court fees as well. This is a ridiculously petty case, a waste of resources, and frankly, he had it coming.
Last edited by Peter Grimm; 02-25-12 at 07:05 PM.
ALL OF THAT has to be decided in law, and it hasn't been. There is no He Had It Commin' law on the books. Lynch mobs are illegal and they are, in themselves, antisocial. Just because you don't like someone doesn't give you the right to physical assault. I don't like you, does that give me the right to throw a brick at you? No.
If the muslim was that thin skinned, he should avoid going out-of-doors. If we, as a society, decide to make laws about offending people, then they need to be on the book.
I'm with Peter Grimm on this one
While I have my doubts about the judge strictly doing his duty, there is a limit as to the offense one must endure before taking matters into his own hands... especially, as in this case, when no actual blows ensued. Most people can be incited to violence given enough effort; those intentionally taking that effort should have a reasonable expectation of the outcome, and should therefore bear at least some of the responsibility for it.
Where do we draw the line?
Should it be illegal to verbally assault someone who is outside society's norms? Should it be illegal to shun your neighbors? Should we pass a series of "sunshine laws" where we are required to smile at each other a certain number of times every day?
Where do we draw the line?
At the end of the day, the judge used his discretion and decided that the damage done in this case didn't amount to criminal activity on the part of the muslim. I agree with him. This case is petty.