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

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.