Thread: US judge rules in favour of man who attacked atheist dressed as the Prophet Mo

Originally Posted by Makedde

The man who dressed as Muhammed was looking for a fight. He got one. He deserved it.

I don't see the problem here. You stir up trouble you accept the consequences.

If you assault someone because you thought they were offensive.....you have consequences or should.

I suppose the next time someone mocks Jesus, by rule of law I could slap that person across the mouth eh?

Originally Posted by Neutral

Agree, if you go out of your way to offend someone and suceed, you are no victim.

Wow. You must be more scott than american. Here isn the US we have freedom of expression.

I guess its ok to kill U.S soldiers to....because a Koran was burned.

The more news this religion makes...with its totaltarian stances, it natural reaction to intimidate free thought and speech, and its lack of control or rational thought processes......the more devil spawned it becomes.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Here in America we have freedom of Speech, freedom of expression. As a subject of a monarchy, you wouldnt understand.

We do have freedom of speech. This says nothing about whether or not people should be held accountable for what they say. They should.

Should the man have been assaulted? The law frowns on people who not only commit violence but those who instigate it and he clearly instigated the reaction he got. He literally asked for it. Not that I personally agree with hate crime legislation, but this fits squarely under that heading.

Does that mean talking about religion is off limits or that it deserves special treatment? No, but it should be clear there are possibly very real consequences to these discussions and if they should come about, they certainly shouldn't be a surprise. You can guess what's going to occur by what's already happened previously.

The man was being an ass but the guy who grabbed at him was out of line

Originally Posted by TheRazorEdge

We do have freedom of speech. This says nothing about whether or not people should be held accountable for what they say. They should.

Should the man have been assaulted? The law frowns on people who not only commit violence but those who instigate it and he clearly instigated the reaction he got. He literally asked for it. Not that I personally agree with hate crime legislation, but this fits squarely under that heading.

Does that mean talking about religion is off limits or that it deserves special treatment? No, but it should be clear there are possibly very real consequences to these discussions and if they should come about, they certainly shouldn't be a surprise. You can guess what's going to occur by what's already happened previously.

But the Muslim instigated it by being religious.

Originally Posted by Blackrook

It's disgusting how you justify violence. But you've said this kind of thing before so I'm not surprised.

If I stood in the middle of a black neighborhood wearing a shirt that said 'Death To All (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s', should I just expect the people to walk on by and ignore me? Or can I expect a good punch in the nose for going out of my way to offend? I think its the latter.

If you deliberately set out to offend someone, a religion, a political belief, then you have to be aware of the consequences. The best choice would be to be respectful and not make fun of people.

Originally Posted by CKW

If you assault someone because you thought they were offensive.....you have consequences or should.

I suppose the next time someone mocks Jesus, by rule of law I could slap that person across the mouth eh?

IMO it depends on what the level of offensive is. Dressing as Jesus isn't offensive, but if you dressed as Jesus and wore offensive clothing, say with a slogan, then really, what would you expect?

Its about being respectful. There is no need to make fun of any religion and the only people who do are being deliberately spiteful.

Originally Posted by Makedde

The man who dressed as Muhammed was looking for a fight. He got one. He deserved it.

I don't see the problem here. You stir up trouble you accept the consequences.

I dont know about that .. If someone dressed like Jesus and someone attacked him I think the result would have been different.

Does God need humans to come and defend him ? I think not.

If someone is stupid enough to blaspheme God ... that is there problem.

If there is a God then at the end of days God can take retribution personally.

If there is no God then it really doesnt matter .. does it ?

Originally Posted by Makedde

IMO it depends on what the level of offensive is. Dressing as Jesus isn't offensive, but if you dressed as Jesus and wore offensive clothing, say with a slogan, then really, what would you expect?

Its about being respectful. There is no need to make fun of any religion and the only people who do are being deliberately spiteful.

Everything can cause offense to some idiot out there.

If I saw someone dressed as a pirate I could beat them up and then claim that I'm offended by people who dress up as murderous scum.

If I see a womam dressed up as a barbie doll I could smack her one and say I was offended that she continues negative stereotypes of women.

If I saw a man dressed up as a woman I could smack him way and say gays offend me.

Where do you draw the line? At what you find offensive?