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

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. Was Google wrong?  If not, what are you on about?

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?