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

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.
>

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt.

>
But making a purportedly statement of fact that her post was illegal was
manipulative and inflammatory.