Islamification is almost complete!

WTF, seriously? Of course its protected under the first amendment. As long as there is no chance that a person is intending to defraud another, or intending to lead people actually BELIEVE they are the other person, the government has no place telling people they can't dress up to look like each other. Imagine if the government could make it illegal to dress up like particular people? Saturday night live could have their political satire sketches banned - that very clear form of speech is entirely dependent on imitating, apearing like, the selected politician.

Ring that Bell.



My rights end where yours begin.

Right...not a stellar example of exemplary jurisprudence!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



ok,, in this example, what law was congress passing?

So you agree that there is no law which could be interpreted as making 'dressing up like someone else' illegal (barring cases of fraud and similar offenses) ?

I'm not clear on the judges logic for even bringing the first amendment into it. Of course the atheist's actions are protected under the first amendment, that's not the issue. The assault (mild thought it was) was illegal.

I listened to a bit of the transcript.

The cop testifies that the muslim guy admitted to him, shortly after the incident, that he attacked the atheist. (He was probably proud of it - look at me, I'm standing up against infidels).

At the trial, though, at least during the portion I listened to, the muslim clearly denies - completely denies - that he ever touched the atheist's sign or his beard.

I thought the plaintiff brought up the first amendment, but I havent read or heard the official transcript

I dont think anyone was stopped from speaking in the case though, so Im not sure where the amendment comes up either.

I also havent seen said 'assault' and have read various accounts of what happened.

where was this recording of the transcript?

Oh, that seems likely. Non-lawyers often like to bring in things that aren't really legally relevant to the circumstances. Assaulting someone, physically trying to take their beard and sign is a crime, regardless of whether their speech is protected speech or not.

His speech is protected under the first amendment, but I don't see why it matters.

I posted the audio on a youtube link on the first page.

early morning rush here... one of the youtube links in this thread isn't really a video, it that audio recording

id be suspect of such a recording

but in any case, I agree that people shouldnt be able to physically place hands on other adults because they dont like something

reminds me of a similar sentiment when the issue of someone burning (their own) flag was brought up,,,,,I remember some felt a similar inclination to get physical with that person,,,,

Exactly. Free speech doesn't matter. He was not prevented from "free speech" by the government.

An assault is an assault.

But in this case I think the judge took into account that the man assaulted may have been purposely inciting a reaction. Its called "fighting words."

They were definitely mocking religion, but where is the angry catholic going after the fake pope?

The Muslim guy just needs to learn you can't do that in America. That's why we call it a free country.

On the other hand when the police do the same thing at a Political rally, they should be charged with assault also.

I am referring to the "free speech zones" used during the George Bush campaign. People were arrested basically and put into an enclosed area with their signs.

Did you listen?

no, there was no link provided, just the mention of it being on youtube causes me to be precautious,,,

The link was provided, on the first page. Being on youtube means we should start with a neutral stance on its credibility. If it were on FOX or CNN at least there would be a major network staking their own credibility on the credibility of the recording. Without that backing, what we have is a recording of unreliable origin, with no particular cause to believe it to be a fake.

If you've ever been to trial, and if you listen to it carefully, and if you've paid attention your whole life to the difference between acting, lying, and authentic dialog, then I think you will agree that it is almost certainly real.

Actually, the man in the parade WAS denied free speech, because the judge ruled that by dressing as a religious figure, he was creating "hate speech" and deserved to be assaulted. The judge upheld Sharia law, which states the assault was not only justified, but demanded.

The judge basically ruled that while you may mock Jesus, the Pope, Isis, Thor, Odin, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you man NOT mock Mohammed, or you risk justifiable assault.

And THAT, my friend, is not upholding the 1st Amendment.

I have been to trial, I mentioned before that I was the victim of an assault myself, where I Was grabbed full body and thrown to a ground.,,,in any case

Im still suspect of a youtube link that claims a judge allowed a plaintiff to tape a court hearing but then refused to let him , Im also suspect that all 'long pauses' were removed, although the tape is 37 minutes long,,,,,there is no telling what was really edited out or what it adds to the context,,

don't buy that

if he is in this country for even a brief time he knows that any type of violent act or physical aggression is actionable. Also, it is his responsibility to know what the laws are and he should be firmly disciplined.

religious extremists of all ilks warned that they must behave under the law in this country

including the presiding judge - who may require discipline and removal if this story is true - regardless of his religious leanings

religion is not above the law in the U.S. - that is what provides us the freedom to practice the religion of our choice. muslims who do not like that have several options on another continent

muslims who appreciate the freedom to practice their religion here can only be successful if they are able to understand that religion is not the law or above the law here AND that others do not have to abide by or accept their POV. I am sure there are plenty of muslims here who do that with little or no difficulty. It is the extremists who give all religions a bad name