Muslim attacks atheist over depiction of Muhammad in PA

[Bayonet_Chris]

The case was thrown out by a Muslim judge. Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs

[LongBlade]

Freedom of speech and religion does not mean freedom from being offended.

Sounds like the judge got this one wrong.

[Epee1]

Like your sig LongBlade!

[son_of_montfort]

Freedom of speech and religion does not mean freedom from being offended.

Sounds like the judge got this one wrong.

But freedom of speech also does not mean freedom to incite riot.

Do we still have a "fighting words" doctrine in the United States?

EDIT: A quick Google confirms we do. The SCOTUS has upheld limitations on freedom of speech when the speech was intended to incite hate or cause a breach of the peace. Now it has been hotly debated, but it still stands. Given that Muslim society believes that physical depictions of Mohammad are highly offensive, I can see the argument here. Also, they said Zombie Pope, but not Zombie Jesus. The Pope is hardly an analog to Mohammad.

[Smuckatelli]

Like your sig LongBlade!

Constitution 101, second video......that is a really great link Epee...thanks.

[LongBlade]

EDIT: A quick Google confirms we do. The SCOTUS has upheld limitations on freedom of speech when the speech was intended to incite hate or cause a breach of the peace. Now it has been hotly debated, but it still stands. Given that Muslim society believes that physical depictions of Mohammad are highly offensive, I can see the argument here. Also, they said Zombie Pope, but not Zombie Jesus. The Pope is hardly an analog to Mohammad.

Bah, humbug. I could say that calling Hearts of Iron III a piece of crap is inflammatory and intended to incite hate.

Does that make it right?

Intolerance on the part of some Muslims does not give them a right to use violence when and where they deem it appropriate.

[son_of_montfort]

Really, I was unaware that a large number of the world's population followed the doctrines expounded by Hearts of Iron III and felt that HoI III was an infallible game.  :P

Come on, comparing religious sentiment with opinion on gaming is a bit silly. You are joking, right?

There was a guy who used to stand in the Bronx and scream about his religion, saying white folks were Satan and that we were all going to Hell. The cops were always there to make sure that nothing happened. I expect that anyone who got riled up about that would have had a good legal defense.

I think this case highlights something this country needs more of - Decorum. You can be an atheist, but don't be a jerk. If you are a jerk, you can expect you might get in a fight. What ever happened to reason? Zombie religious figures? What is the point?

[Jarhead0331]

Freedom of speech and religion does not mean freedom from being offended.

Sounds like the judge got this one wrong.

But freedom of speech also does not mean freedom to incite riot.

Do we still have a "fighting words" doctrine in the United States?

EDIT: A quick Google confirms we do. The SCOTUS has upheld limitations on freedom of speech when the speech was intended to incite hate or cause a breach of the peace. Now it has been hotly debated, but it still stands. Given that Muslim society believes that physical depictions of Mohammad are highly offensive, I can see the argument here. Also, they said Zombie Pope, but not Zombie Jesus. The Pope is hardly an analog to Mohammad.

So a Nazi and a KKK member can freely waive a swastika in my face but a veteran cannot criticize Mohamed?  Interesting interpretation of the "fighting words" doctrine.

[LongBlade]

Really, I was unaware that a large number of the world's population followed the doctrines expounded by Hearts of Iron III and felt that HoI III was an infallible game.

Does it matter? It is a subjective interpretation as to when and where violence is permissible.

I find it utterly absurd how some Muslims lack tolerance with regard to how their religion is viewed, and show utter disregard of other religions.

This is a double standard and has no place in a free society.

[Bison]

Maybe if he would have put a  ;) in the picture it would have been less offensive or something.   Oh wait....maybe he could have taken an icon and superimposed an ipad on it.  Cause that's good humor.  ;)

[son_of_montfort]

Freedom of speech and religion does not mean freedom from being offended.

Sounds like the judge got this one wrong.

But freedom of speech also does not mean freedom to incite riot.

Do we still have a "fighting words" doctrine in the United States?

EDIT: A quick Google confirms we do. The SCOTUS has upheld limitations on freedom of speech when the speech was intended to incite hate or cause a breach of the peace. Now it has been hotly debated, but it still stands. Given that Muslim society believes that physical depictions of Mohammad are highly offensive, I can see the argument here. Also, they said Zombie Pope, but not Zombie Jesus. The Pope is hardly an analog to Mohammad.

So a Nazi and a KKK member can freely waive a swastika in my face but a veteran cannot criticize Mohamed?  Interesting interpretation of the "fighting words" doctrine.

Actually, I'm not sure they can. You would know better than me.

BTW, the veteran in the case was the judge, not the defendant. 

Bison, how about you cut the crap in talking about me and either say what you want to say directly to me or talk about the issues.

My avatar goes with my web series, the Electronic Eremite - a monk playing a game on a computer. How can you possibly be offended by a picture of Thomas Aquinas holding an iPad.

You better back up you assertion of Anti-Catholicism or back the heck down. I'm taking this subtle accusation of prejudice very seriously.

[Jarhead0331]

Actually, I'm not sure they can. You would know better than me.

Are you being serious?  Of course they can. Haven't you ever heard of Skokie, Illinois?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

he Illinois Supreme Court allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march when it ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words.

Now that, my chainmail wearing friend, is Con Law 101.

[Smuckatelli]

Actually, I'm not sure they can. You would know better than me.

Are you being serious?  Of course they can. Haven't you ever heard of Skokie, Illinois?

One of those bums tried infiltrating my Sniper Platoon in 1989, he lasted 3 months before he was processed for a BCD. I am actually very proud of him getting a BCD that quickly.

[son_of_montfort]

Actually, I'm not sure they can. You would know better than me.

Are you being serious?  Of course they can. Haven't you ever heard of Skokie, Illinois?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

he Illinois Supreme Court allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march when it ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words.

Now that, my chainmail wearing friend, is Con Law 101.

Well then don't be mad at me, be mad at the unequal application of the doctrine!  :P

Fine fine. I was playing Devil's Advocate anyway. Not really worth an argument. Let the guy appeal.

[Bison]

A small subtle irony in all this.  Someone does something.  That something offends somebody.  Then somebody threathens someone to get someone to be quiet.  Interesting.