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

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.  Now, one may argue that the *true* motive of the arresting cops was to punish her original objection, but that's a different arena.  (And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed to provoke issue.)