PA muslim judge allows to attack people for insulting Mohammad

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, our societies already have laws protecting others rights. Nothing to do with political correctness.

 

It is blackmail since you are proposing a "do this or else" scenario...

And if you love censorship then you can go and live where it is the norm, like Iran for example.. you'll fit right in...

Also, peoples right ends where they infringe on someone else right. And since I have the right to do as I please with what I buy and own, and since you have no right whatsoever to commit any act of violence or murder in any respectable modern society, guess who is on the level here... (hint: You're not...)

 

You got it all backward, there is no inherent right to protect your religion (or any other subject of your affection/faith/love etc) from criticism or even ridicule. There is on the other hand freedom of speech protecting your right to say things that might be offensive to others.

 

I note that you are not American, neither am I but I can guarantee I can argue American constitutional rights with you any day on this point and win. Freedom of speech offending others is not absolute under the constitution.

 

Dont be facile, all laws have punishment if not adhered to.

Typical childish response

I bet you dont even know you just killed your own argument here do ya Sparky? Lol. End of thread.

 

Yes it is... You can sue in a civil case if you want but you are not garanteed to win....

 

First of all it is absolute (unless you can come up with a precedent when an offensive speech was deemed unconstitutional). Second it's not even the topic of this thread. Violence against an individual is most definitely outright criminal, let alone unconstitutional, regardless of what caused such violence (short of self-defense). Yet the judge let the alleged criminal walk scotch free.

 

You need to research a bit and come back to this. Theres plenty of precedent for offensive speech being prosecuted. You also need to learn how the justice system works. I have no intention of spending my spare time educating you.

 

Thanks for candidly admitting your defeat on the constitutionality of offensive speech in the US.

Given that you completely avoided my other more important point - the violence of the insulted muslim dude which can't possibly be justified/excused by someone else's actions (constitutional or not ) and the judge's decision through out the case, I gather you have no leg to stand on.


PS read and weep:

Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.[52][53][54] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech...
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[61] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment

 

Muslims shouldn't be judges in American court rooms. They don't believe in the separation of church and state, and they can't be impartial. Bunch of primitive screwheads.

 

It is unconstitutional to deny Jews or Muslims certain careers simply because they are hated by anti-Semites.

 

No it is not, but the line seems to be drawn differently for each.

If one should pile up Bibles and burn them it is freedom of speech.

If one were to do the same with the Koran it could be seen as inciting violence.

If one should happen to draw a picture of Mohammad beheading someone or having sex with a little girl it could be considered inciting violence and if you got killed or attacked the offender may just walk with this precedent.

If a Christian should do the same for offending Christ or burning the Bible they would get the book thrown at them and be labeled a fanatic.

So is there one line or many? Are some more equal than others? It seems that way. Contraband can be burned and two officers killed and we apologize? Get with it man.

 

Yeah but pissing on a crucifix and burning bibles is fine. Burn a Koran because it was contraband and 2 killed, riots and we apologize? Something is wrong with this.

 

Since you aren't American you don't understand the way things work in the USA. The prohibition on the establishment of religion in the First Amendment cannot be honored by faithful Muslims because the Holy Quran admonishes and enjoins them to make Sharia the only law observed on earth. Since faithful Muslims cannot honor the proscriptions of the US Constitution they are not fit to serve on the bench any where in America. They are unfit to be jurists.

 

Show me which law states that Jews or Muslims may be denied government jobs since they are hated by anti-Semites.

 

The idea is to not lower oneself to the standards of the racist. If one wants to think that one is better than "them", then one must demonstrate that such is actually the case.

 

Aren't judges supposed to be sworn to uphold the constitution? This judge has clearly broken his vow.

 

What is the Judge supposed to have done wrong? Nothing defines that he must act on insufficient evidence:

Martin said he dismissed the case for lack of evidence after Elbayomy testified that the confrontation was not physical, an apparent contradiction of what he told police the day of the parade. Court records spelled his first name Talaag, an online listing had Talaat and Perce’s video called him Talaaq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-trial-audio/2012/02/28/gIQA5kUggR_story.html

 

I was not talking about you It's the job of the jury, not the judge to decide whether there is enough evidence.

 

After reading the various links, this is probably being blown out of proportion.

"Zombie Mo" went out to stir up something, and he did. Two immature little boys got into a school yard fight. They went to court and the judge threw it out with a lecture to "Zombie Mo". Elbayomy should have gotten a good lecture as well.

The judge says he is not really muslim. He was trying to make a point, which is not his job, but its odd he lied.

Personally, just to send a message to the muslims that we aren't putting up with their crap any longer, the judge should have made an example out of Elbayomy. Maybe a week cleaning the floor of the hot dog factory.

 

Criminal Rule 28. A judge can decide to dismiss after hearing the evidence and concluding that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude there is proof of guilt
http://www.idahocriminaldefenselaw....efense/cant-the-judge-just-dismiss-this-case/

 

Is this proven?

 

LOL, a civil case in Idaho? It was a criminal case and quoting from your own link:

In criminal cases I am often asked why the judge doesn't just dismiss the case.

Thanks

 

You stated that you didn't know that judges can dismiss court cases:

Pennsylvania likely has a similar ruling as Idaho.

 

Ian, about the only speech that is offensive but not protected under law must fall under one or more of the following conditions:

1) a direct appeal to violence (encouraging someone to attack someone else)

2) falsely accusing someone of something (libel or slander)

3) making death threats

If it doesn't fit any of those criteria, then it's legal even if it's offensive.

Note that #2 doesn't apply to accusations against groups -- it only applies to individuals or families.

For example, you can say something like "All Muslims are evil", and that's legal.

You couldn't say something like "John Smith rapes children," because that's a defamation of character against an individual.