Civil-rights attorney Chester Darling agreed. “No one should go to court. It’s knuckle justice,” he said. “It’s a fair exchange.”Maybe this Judge Mark W Martin went to the same law school as Chester Darling. They were probably even in the same cell block.
I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds of first amendment rights.I'd support removing this judge for being a First Amendment doofus.
Christian cognitive dissonance vortex imminent. Take shelter.On the one hand, it's license to beat up people who mock your religion*. On the other hand, it's a Muslim judge handing down a verdict that seems influenced by Sharia law.
it appears that Elbayomy was prosecuted for criminal harassment, which requires an “intent to harass, annoy, or alarm,” and a mere physical attack with an attempt to grab a sign might or might not qualify, see the pen-grabbing discussion in this case. The acquittal itself might thus be justified, depending on exactly what evidence was introduced.This sounds more like a case of incompetent prosecution.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;The charge was apparently not assault, but criminal harassment.
In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.
Not really. The only reason this story has legs is because of the false claim that the judge is Muslim. Either the "victim" who released the tape recording manipulated that recording or the judge spoke in the "sportscaster subjunctive" and the "victim" misunderstood (along with the entire right-wing blogosphere).Are you just trolling or something? Maybe this guy is a huge asshole but on what planet does that make it legal to for random people to beat someone up if they feel they are?
...
Oh, and given that none of the links in the FPP point this out, the "Zombie Mohammed" was carrying a sign that read on one side "only Muhammed can rape America." So, yeah, the atheist dude was definitely being an asshole.
Would you personally, BobbyVan, feel upset if a judge told someone who was carrying a sign saying "only Christ can rape America" that he was a "doofus"?The other guy was dressed as a 'creepy pope' who was making jokes about 'wanting people's children'. He didn't get assaulted by any Catholics.
That said, I was under the impression that First Amendment protection would extend to a prohibition on the government legalizing violence against people because of their speech, e.g. the government could not have a law which stated that it was okay to assault people if they speak ill about your religion. I may be wrong on this.Yes, of course you're right. That's why the police have to protect Fried Phelps or if the KKK or neo-nazis organize a march the police are required to actively protect them. Otherwise they could just let mobs beat them up.
At no point was anyone beat up or was anyone accused of beating someone up. This sort of hyperbole is not helpful.What? the video the victim posted clearly says "He's choking me" followed by "he's ripping my beard and sign off". He was clearly accused of assaulting someone. Maybe the guy felt like he was being choked when the guy was trying to pull the beard off.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;The judge basically did his job with professionalism and empathy and then had his actions twisted around by zombie muhammad and the monday internet meme machine: a bunch of bored people trying to find something to be angry about
In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.
No, he wasn't accused of assaulting someone. The police report apparently only mentions that the sign was grabbed.Yes, he was accused of assaulting someone. The victim claims he choked him, which is the definition of 'accuse'? He wasn't charged with assault by the prosecutor, but he was certainly accused of it victim.
Not in a court of law, he wasn't. Oddly enough, judges don't rule on comments made in YouTube videos.Which is irrelevant to whether or not the statement "he was not accused of assault" is false. It is. I have no idea what point you're even trying to make with that comment. It's completely unrelated to what I wrote.
I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.This seems dubious to me, especially in light of the fact that at least one eyewitness was present in the courtroom (the atheist who dressed as the Pope) and there was a Youtube video documenting the incident. It could be that the prosecutor failed to call the "atheist Pope" or introduce the video. It seems more likely to me that the judge is a cowboy with a dangerous conception of the First Amendment, but I'm glad to be proven wrong if there's more information as to what exactly happened in the courtroom.
I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).Yes, he was accused of assaulting someone. The victim claims he choked him, which is the definition of 'accuse'? He wasn't charged with assault by the prosecutor, but he was certainly accused of it victim.
...
And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”
...
A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.I'll reiterate. This is a judge with a dangerous conception of the First Amendment. For him to say this to someone who claimed to have been attacked, after dismissing said claim, leads me to seriously question what role the content of the claimant's views played in the ultimate verdict. The judge needs to better explain himself, because I think - provisionally - that his understanding of the First Amendment is so warped as to render him incapable of holding his judgeship.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.I can see nothing in this comment that disagrees with my summary of the 'spirit' of the First Amendment up above. He is saying that while doofus has a right to make stupid hateful comments about Islam, that was not the purpose of the First Amendment--which, clearly, it was not. Saying it is not the purpose of the First Amendment is not saying that the First Amendment does not protect such statements.
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.Now, it is not OK to assault someone who expresses an opinion you find offensive; but there is insufficient evidence here to show that that occurred. Nor is it OK to harrass someone (the specific charge in this case, which requires physical contact with intent to cause harrassment, annoyance, or alarm). I don't know why the prosecutor didn't introduce the YouTube video, but my guess is that the reason is its lack of probative value. All we have from that video is some voices - no imagery of the defendant, nothing to corroborate the complainant's allegations. The prosecution here failed to meet it's burden of proof.
The complaint charged that appellant,In this case, a person dressed as Zombie Muhammad made up a sign that said "Only Muhammad Can Rape America" and walked down the street, then claimed to have been attacked. I see no comparison here.
"with force and arms, in a certain public place in said city of Rochester, to-wit, on the public sidewalk on the easterly side of Wakefield Street, near unto the entrance of the City Hall, did unlawfully repeat the words following, addressed to the complainant, that is to say, 'You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists,' the same being offensive, derisive and annoying words and names."
He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).I can't see how you get "sympathizing with...religious zealotry" from what is, to be quite honest, a pretty progressive respect for all faiths despite having been shot at by some of them. In fact, it seems to me the accuser is the zealot here, by essentially being the atheist version of Fred Phelps. As a vocal and proud atheist myself, this guy comes off as how I imagine my liberal religious friends and family view the WBC or ultra-Orthodox Jews or Muslim extremists.
He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended.
It's not a dodge. He did not call the defendant a doofus. He said that when you mock/criticize something you ought to be informed in your mockery or criticism or you risk looking like a doofus.When someone is trying to make up excuses for someone's bad behavior, they ought to avoid using the most narrow weasel-worded interpretations of language possible while deliberately ignoring the most obviously intentionally communicated interpretations of simple sentences. Otherwise they would risk looking like a literal-minded fool incapable of deciphering even the most simple subtext.
It was further said: "The word `offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent are `fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . . Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace.. . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker — including `classical fighting words', words in current use less `classical' but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."My point here is that where the offensive quality of speech is highly foreseeable, it's disingenuous to overlook the possibility of it being provocative. Like others in this thread, I'm an atheist; not only do I not believe in any religion, I find coercive or institutionalized forms of religion deplorable. Put bluntly, Islam as practiced in many countries is an unpleasant-religion that glorifies theocracy, martyrdom, and violence. While being entirely aware of the cultural and historical contexts, I have no time for crowds chanting 'death to America' at Friday prayers in Tehran, suicide bombers in Kabul setting bombs in response to negligent but not malicious destruction of Korans, mobs in Pakistan lynching people for blasphemy, or individuals being extradited to Saudi Arabia and possibly facing the death penalty for expressing skepticism about holiness of Muhammad. Sectarian fundamentalism is a Bad Thing, and is too well tolerated within Islam for my tastes. This deters me considerably from wanting to visit or even culturally appreciate many countries where Islam is the majority religion.
I mean, don't get me wrong, of course you have a right to hold an opinion about anything you like, but the courts are under no obligation facilitate your opinion of them one way or the other. The deal with laws and the people effected by them, not with wooing the court of public opinion.How the people's laws are administered is pretty important in a democracy. Not so much in places like North Korea.
Perce seems to contend that such victim blaming against him means that the judge was biased against atheists. It seems more likely to me that the judge is biased against assholes.I'm not saying that's not the case. What I am saying is that the 14th amendment gives people the right to equal protection under the law, not equal protection with the exception of assholes.
The reason I have so little sympathy for the invocation of the first amendment (at the time of the incident, under color of 'this is America, dude...we have freedom of speech') is that the 1A also protects the free exercise of religion; and the defendant's assertion that such mockery is offensive to him as a Muslim falls within that.Actually, it's the other way around, freedom of religion should mean the freedom to criticize other religions. Since all of these religions think the others are all wrong, it would be impossible to have 'free' religion without the right to criticize religion.
Additionally, people complaining about a judge lecturing defendants or plaintiffs have quite obviously spent very little time in a court room - it is incredibly common behaviour and well within expected norms whether you agree with them or not.This guy was the VICTIM. Judges lecturing victims would be, I think, pretty unusual.
I would have liked to see him prosecuted for harassment, if it can be proved that he did attack someone. Failing that, I would have liked to see him get a lecture along with or instead of the victim (or, alternately, for the case to be dismissed for lack of evidence, without any lecture at all).Yeah, I'm not saying this guy should be thrown in jail. But he should be the one getting the lecture here.
vorfeed, are you familiar with the idea of mitigating circumstances? There is nothing disgusting about it. And I'm very clearly and specifically not saying there should never be consequences for someone who assaults someone by punching or ripping their shirt off or whatever the hell you're on about right now. You're being silly.Being offended is not a 'mitigating' circumstance.
From the reports, it seems his buddy was mocking the papacy. So, it seems they were on a bit of an anti-religion kick in general. For all we know, if a butterfly had flapped its wings, his friend could've been the one who was assaulted/harassed. I haven't seen anything in the reporting that suggests a particular anti-muslim bias, as opposed to a general anti-religious thing going on. Could be wrong on that.Yeah, the friend was dressed as a "creepy pope" and making jokes about wanting people's children. Obviously attacking the pope isn't as offensive to Catholics as attacking Muhammad is to Muslims
Insufficient evidence - An assault and battery charge can be dismissed due to insufficient evidence. For example, maybe there were no eyewitnesses of the assault and battery or no visible injuries on the victim. The most common insufficient evidence defense is an absence of the intent to harm the person. You do not need direct proof of intent as long as the circumstances infer you acted with intent to harm.posted by empath at 6:54 PM on February 27, 2012 [2 favorites]
When someone is trying to make up excuses for someone's bad behavior, they ought to avoid using the most narrow weasel-worded interpretations of language possible while deliberately ignoring the most obviously intentionally communicated interpretations of simple sentences. Otherwise they would risk looking like a literal-minded fool incapable of deciphering even the most simple subtext.I don't feel insulted. I disagree -- quite entirely -- that it is being literal-minded to the point of obtuseness to distinguish between a) calling someone <name> and b) stating that when one behaves in <x> manner one risks being perceived as <name>, where <x> is commonly considered a distinguishing characteristic of individuals who are considered to be <name>. I think it is a perfectly fine, and useful, distinction to make.
Notice, I didn't call you a fool here. Yet, in the hypothetical case that we all admitted that it's possible to call someone names clearly-yet-indirectly, I would still feel compelled to apologize for some reason...
I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.If all we ever did with the First Amendment was speak our mind and not piss anyone off, we wouldn't need a First Amendment.
Perce says that Elbayomy grabbed him and tried to take his sign. Elbayomy was at the parade with his wife and children and said that he felt he had to act in the face of the insult. The officer at the scene, Sgt. Brian Curtis, correctly concluded that Perce was engaged in a lawful, first amendment activity. He therefore charged Elbayomy. While it looks like an assault, he was only charged with harassment.posted by BobbyVan at 9:46 PM on February 27, 2012
Interviewer: When I spoke to him over the phone, Judge Martin acknowledged it’s his job to protect the rights of people like the atheist, no matter how offensive they might be.posted by BobbyVan at 7:10 AM on February 28, 2012
Interviewer to Judge Martin: … There are some who believe you were failing to protect that right.
Judge Martin: No, I don’t think so. Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.
Ok, seriously. What happened? Guy got into a small tussle. Was he hurt? Probably not, or you know full well he would have a litany of his injuries. Hell, his Styrofoam sign that the other guy was going for was still in good shape which means it couldn't have been that voilent. So, guy gets into a shoving, shouting match. The person who instigates it gets arrested. You know what happens 99% of the time? Charges are dropped. -- aspoSure, I don't have a problem with that. The problem is the fact that the judge gave this guy this lecture.
And how, pray tell, did the government act to limit Perce's freedom of speech in this instance? Was he arrested, detained, or driven away from the parade? No, his antagonist was placed under arrest and charged with harassment. -- anigbrowlAs I explained, even if the judge didn't 'literally' say that he couldn't count on the law to protect him in a situation like that, there is an implied message. It also makes it seem like he had a beef with the victim, which seems really inappropriate.
Well, let's try it with the roles reversed: would you say that a Muslim chanting 'Death to America' was being provocative compared to a Muslim that simply utters some general profession of faith like 'I believe Muhammad is God's prophet'? The former seems offensive to me as a denizen of the US, whereas the latter is simply a belief that I don't share but which doesn't threaten me in any fashion. -- anigbrowlSo, lets say some Muslim was out there yelling "death to America" and someone ran up and got into an 'altercation' with him. You'd be fine with judge giving him a lecture and telling him that it was his own fault for being a dumbass, and that he shouldn't have been saying that? How is that not a curtailment of freedom of speech.
Provocation is almost a textbook example of a mitigating circumstance. -- empathfeel free to link to the textbook. (I'm not holding my breath)
Insufficient evidence - An assault and battery charge can be dismissed due to insufficient evidence. For example, maybe there were no eyewitnesses of the assault and battery or no visible injuries on the victim. The most common insufficient evidence defense is an absence of the intent to harm the person. You do not need direct proof of intent as long as the circumstances infer you acted with intent to harm. -- empathHe was charged with harassment, not assault.
Well it's a good thing the Judge never even implied that was the case, now isn't it? -- aspoNo, but again random people in the thread are saying it was.
Do you know that that is all that happened? There were no words exchanged? No pushing back and forth? I wasn't there, were you? -- empathFirst you say wearing a costume is provocation, then you say "well, maybe there was something we didn't see!" Well, sure, and maybe the Muslim guy punched out a bunch of other atheists the night before. If no one knows about it then we can't really discuss it.
Interviewer: When I spoke to him over the phone, Judge Martin acknowledged it’s his job to protect the rights of people like the atheist, no matter how offensive they might be.If this guy thinks we're at risk of losing our ability to badmouth Islam he's delusional. On the other hand this guy is spouting nonsense that's going to inflame the Islamophobic crazy-sphere. (according to the logic of some in this thread, by the way he shouldn't be saying it because it's so offensive to large groups of people *rolls eyes*)
Interviewer to Judge Martin: … There are some who believe you were failing to protect that right.
Judge Martin: No, I don’t think so. Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.
It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.Who knows what "right" the judge is referring to here, as distinct from the First Amendment. Maybe the "right" to be a doofus and get your ass kicked for it as a result. Merely citing the First Amendment and talking in the abstract about someone's "right" doesn't = respect for free speech. Especially when the lecture includes this jarring insight:
...
I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.
In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.This is blatant intimidation. What's the judge saying, "you're lucky the defendant went so easy on you?" "Consider yourself lucky you didn't have your head chopped off?"
"Magisterial District Judges, Arraignment Court Magistrates and Judges of the Philadelphia Traffic Court who are not members of the bar of this Commonwealth shall complete a course of training and instruction in the duties of their respective offices and pass an examination prior to assuming office." Judicial Code (42 Pa C.S.A. §3112)Now I still think this "judge" is an idiot with a seriously warped concept of the First Amendment, but I'm willing to him some slack, since it's quite possible that he hasn't seriously studied the US Constitution in the first place.
"Judges of the Traffic Court in the City of Philadelphia and justices of the peace shall be members of the bar of the Supreme Court or shall complete a course of training and instruction in the duties of their respective offices and pass an examination prior to assuming office. Such courses and examinations shall be as provided by law." Constitution of Pennsylvania (Article V, §12b)
Individuals who are not members of the Pennsylvania Bar seeking to hold the office of Magisterial District Judge, Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge or Philadelphia Arraignment Court Magistrate must be certified prior to assuming office.
The deadline to register for the June 4 - 29, 2012 certification training is Friday, May 4, 2012.
You can hear gaps in the recording, most notably around 4:45 where there's an abrupt switch from prosecutor's questioning of Perce to Defence Counsel's questioning, without any handoff or greeting. There's a noticeable break in the audio; this may be nothing more than an accidental interruption of the recording but it's hard to know how much is missing or what that content concerned. Likewise, discussion about the admissibility or exclusion of Perce's video and third-party witness testimony seems to be absent. I don't feel like listening through the whole 40 minutes of it again to catalog every break or inconsistency.This business about tampering is a lame diversion. The judge gave a long response in which he could have challenged the content of the transcript or recording; all he did was say that he was not a Muslim (as the recording and transcript originally implied) and quibble over his use of the word "doofus." As Jonathan Turley points out, the judge "does not question the accuracy for those statements on the first amendment."
And it never once crossed your mind that (a) omission is a form of tampering/manipulation, or (b) that the fidelity of the recording makes things difficult?
And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive... I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.posted by BobbyVan at 5:40 AM on February 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being.Essentially, the judge is arguing that Muslims are more sensitive (“they find it very, very, very offensive”) to criticism or mockery than Christians because for Muslims, Islam is “their culture, their very essence, their very being.” In fact, according to the judge, such mocking behavior so offends Muslims as to make the mocking behavior “outside [the] bounds of First Amendment rights.” So what we have here is something even worse than religion in general being privileged; we have the Islamic faith and culture being privileged over Christianity.
...
And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive... I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.
« Older I Love Photography.... | Make Your Thing:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Xoebe at 11:30 AM on February 27, 2012 [14 favorites]