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

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?