Re: Jewish Journalist Arrested for Objecting to Islamic Terror Symbol in Grocery Store

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.
Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt.  E.g.,:
    "In 2008, Marcel Brown was arrested for murder at the age of 18. He spent a decade in prison before being exonerated."