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

On Mar 10, 2025 at 9:17:06 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 3/9/2025 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  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.

>
Do stick to those guns.  You have another foot...

 Behold the irony.