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

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...