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.