Adam Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 My question is this, why is this judge even allowed to oversee this case? He's a Muslim. Should they allow a human judge to try other humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Should they allow a human judge to try other humans? I think he's getting at a conflict of interest, Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I think he's getting at a conflict of interest, Adam. So am I- if the judge is of the same species, isn't that conflict of interest. OK, ok, I get it. Should a christian judge preside over a case involving christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So am I- if the judge is of the same species, isn't that conflict of interest. OK, ok, I get it. Should a christian judge preside over a case involving christians? If the Christian judge invokes the biblical code over the Constitution, then he's absolutely conflicted. There are no shades of gray here. There is nothing prohibiting the guy from exercising his right of expression in mocking Mohammed. It may be in bad taste, but it's perfectly legal. Getting assaulted for that is not legal. At least not in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon in Pasadena Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) If the Christian judge invokes the biblical code over the Constitution, then he's absolutely conflicted. There are no shades of gray here. There is nothing prohibiting the guy from exercising his right of expression in mocking Mohammed. It may be in bad taste, but it's perfectly legal. Getting assaulted for that is not legal. At least not in the US. That American citizens (I assume) evidently don't get this leaves me hovering somewhere between shocked and horrified. Maybe they'll grok it when one of their behaviours incites some !@#$tard to assault and injure them with no consequences to the assailant? Maybe?? Edited February 28, 2012 by Jon in Pasadena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/27/man-in-zombie-muhammed-costume-alleges-attack-by-muslim-man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 You know what's funny? I'm old enough to remember a neo-nazi march through Skokie, Illinios, where the do gooders argued that the scum had the right to march and that no harm should come to them because their right to march was protected by a faded document written by wrinkly men in the 18th century. I disliked the ratinale on a personal basis, but I accepted it as the FRIGGIN LAW OF THIS LAND What the F is wrong with you people? We didn't escape the crap of Europe only to have that crap follow us here. I HATE Illinois Nazis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 A Military friend of mine said that by the same logic he is within his rights to punch the judge, as he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I don’t think that we’re in danger of losing our free speech rights because some people say things that are offensive to Muslims. I do think that free speech rights are in danger when judges berate alleged crime victims for their anti-Islam speech, and thus convey the message that the legal system may be biased against those who engage in such speech and may fail to protect those people because of such speech. Eugene Volokh . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Eugene Volokh . There were some interesting comments after that. The real kicker here is this judge, who is a tumbling, tumbling dickweed, could have easily dismissed this case and lectured the "victim" without causing a lot of controversy and blatantly wiping his feet on the law. The harrassment seems pretty minor so he could have thrown that out or given him short probation and taken the case under advisement, told the muslim guy that he can't resort to violence even if someone is acting offensive, and then told the vic that he has a right to say what he wants but he's acting like an ass and he'd be well advised not to go around stirring up ****. Instead, this dumbass decides to spout off Spidermanesque philosophy about the responsibility that comes with having rights (whatever the !@#$ that's supposed to mean) and declare conduct offensive to religious groups goes beyond the limits of the first amendment (I would like to know what case he's citing). It's unfortunate that he chose the words he did, but as a judge he has great power, and with great power comes great responsibility. And now, for the sake of his integrity and the integrity of the court, he should fall on the sword and step down. He's obviously been promoted beyond his competence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 The real kicker here is this judge, who is a tumbling, tumbling dickweed, could have easily dismissed this case and lectured the "victim" without causing a lot of controversy and blatantly wiping his feet on the law. Nice reference. Patrick, stop calling me pumpkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Nice reference. Patrick, stop calling me pumpkin. I was wondering if anyone would catch that. Edited February 28, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts