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

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.

(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.