Patterico's Pontifications

8/1/2007

First Amendment Implications of Charging a Koran Desecrator Under Hate Crime Laws

Filed under: Civil Liberties,Constitutional Law,Crime,General — Patterico @ 6:04 am



Two examples:

1. A student steals two copies of the Koran and defaces them. He defecates on one of them. He is arrested by a Muslim detective. What would normally be a misdemeanor prosecution becomes two felonies under hate crime laws.

2. A student steals two copies of L. Ron Hubbard’s “Dianetics” and defaces them. On one of them he writes: “Scientology is a scam, and Scientologists are either crooks or dupes.” He is arrested by a Scientologist detective. What would normally be a misdemeanor prosecution becomes two felonies under hate crime laws.

The first example is, of course, based on reality. The second is based on a hypothetical designed by Eugene Volokh in this comment. (I added the part about the detective’s religion.)

How does a crime like this become a felony? What are the relevant statutes? Allahpundit and Eugene Volokh discuss.

More interestingly, are First Amendment values implicated by applying hate crime laws to an action like this? Eugene Volokh discusses here, with numerous difficult-to-distinguish hypotheticals.

77 Responses to “First Amendment Implications of Charging a Koran Desecrator Under Hate Crime Laws”

  1. I disagree with the concept of hate crimes completely.

    My $0.02 however, the acts are not protected under free speech when they are targeted at specific individuals and is meant to frighten or threaten. Like raising your fist at someone with the seeming intent to strike them, even if you dont, can still be considered assault.

    The accusation is that the koran was defaced not as protest or statement about anything, which would then be protected speech. But as a threat to particular muslims on campus.

    Personally, I think he should just be charged with whatever destruction of property or vandalism applies. But I think the above is the hate crime rationale in this case.

    Fco (201cb0)

  2. A student steal two copies of ORGION OF THE SPECIES in one he wrires EVOLUTION IS ALIE the other he burns and soon atheist wackoAND EVOLUTIONISTS richard dawkins is demanding he get life in prison knowing what a igoramus dawkins is

    krazy kagu (d982eb)

  3. i also disagree with the concept of hate crimes. you don’t need to create a provocative hypothetical when you already have the “piss christ”, a sculpture consisting of a crucifix submerged in a glass of urine which caused some controversy back east a few years ago. as i recall, nobody got arrested but there were threats to boycott the gallery.

    muslims seem to be demanding exaggerated deference to their ways, more than christians, jews, pagans, atheists, etc., and the blind rush of unbridled sensitivity on the part of some to accord them this actually diminishes the rights of the others. if prosecutions like this become widespread, i propose that we express solidarity with the defendants by each of us defacing a koran and uploading the video to youtube.

    assistant devil's advocate (3b67ac)

  4. The fact that a Muslim detective arrested him is disturbing. Tribalism at is best/worst. Are we a nation of laws or not? And if we are, why does a highly political operative get to make this arrest?

    Patricia (824fa1)

  5. I support hate crime legislation. The purpose was to target serious societal crimes, i.e., people who committed serious crimes against people based on race, etc. However, in reality, the use of hate crimes is abused.

    sam (7428a7)

  6. And if it were a bible being defaced by a muslim and the arresting officer was an evangelical?

    I’m against hate crimes legislation on principle, but the post skews the argument for rhetorical effect. Islam v L. Ron Hubbard. funny.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  7. Re: “The accusation is that the koran was defaced not as protest or statement about anything, which would then be protected speech. But as a threat to particular muslims on campus.”

    How can putting a koran in the toilet be a “threat” to anyone?
    In my narrow mind a threat would be “I will harm you if I get the opportunity” or the like. Dumping a koran, or any book in the toilet is an opinion, again -in my mind – i.e. I think this is crap, or equal to. That is what goes into a toilet – crap. And this is consistant with an expression of opinion – regardless of what kind of book, or literature is put into a toilet.

    It is a complete outrage that this is charged as a “hate” crime. By any stretch of the imagination.

    Had a Muslim done this to the bible, you can bet your ass CAIR, the ACLU and other’s would be out there shouting – this is “free expression”.

    The world has witnessed other religious books, effigies, christian symbols defaced in much worse ways with absolutely no action taken.

    This completely one-sided Muslim sensitivity, and un-challenged assualts on Christians and Jews needs to end.

    I wonder what the ALCU and all the left will do when they help to strengthen the most “intollerant” religion of all – which has a “death sentence” for many of thier prized freedoms – like gay rights, freedom of dissent, liberalism, ect, ect… to the point of no return, and wake up to a real nighmare. They think christians, and conservatives are nightmares – well, they will have a rude awakening one day of what the real nighmare is, as they continue their ignorant ways.

    smee (638a6a)

  8. Patricia:

    The fact that a Muslim detective arrested him is disturbing. Tribalism at is best/worst. Are we a nation of laws or not?

    What law disqualifies a muslim detective from making an arrest in a hate crime incident? He wasn’t the judge who wrote the arrest warrant, or the DA who requested one, or the captain who assigned him to make the arrest. Honestly.

    The piss Christ was a statement. Disgusting and offensive as it may be. It’s one thing to do these kinds of exhibitions and put them up as “art”, and another to leave them for someone with the intent to offend or hurt them specifically. Would the authorities prosecute this harshly a student who did the same to a Bible? probably not. But there’s not a double standard between this case and the Christ in urine.

    Fco (201cb0)

  9. “We commend the NYPD for its appropriate handling of this case,” said CAIR-NY Civil Rights Coordinator Aliya Latif. “We must all be concerned when any actions cross the line from protected free speech to acts designed to intimidate. Just as there is a difference between someone burning a cross in their own backyard and burning that same cross in the yard of an African- American family, there is a difference between desecrating a religious text in a private setting and doing so in a setting that will create a hostile learning environment.

    In other words, don’t insult Muslims, or we’re coming after you.

    Where is the intimidation again?

    Pablo (99243e)

  10. Fco,

    Disgusting and offensive as it may be. It’s one thing to do these kinds of exhibitions and put them up as “art”, and another to leave them for someone with the intent to offend or hurt them specifically.

    Offend or insult, not hurt. The only harm done here is to the books.

    Pablo (99243e)

  11. If I lived in NYC, I would buy a bunch of korans, and dump one in every toilet in Pace.

    sam (7428a7)

  12. Envy is not a crime. Lust is not a crime.

    Hate is not a crime.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  13. The right to insult and/or offend is protected by the First Amend. There is no special exemption for muslims.

    sam (7428a7)

  14. Pablo:

    Offend or insult, not hurt. The only harm done here is to the books.

    I don’t disagree. I’d consider it harm if the kid’s actions could reasonably be interpreted as threatening to the muslim students, which I don’t and the authorities do.

    It’s the usual victim’s complex on the part of a minority. And Shmulevich is this week’s sacrificial lamb so PC officials can appear to be protecting minorities from the big bad racist society.

    Fco (201cb0)

  15. I don’t disagree. I’d consider it harm if the kid’s actions could reasonably be interpreted as threatening to the muslim students, which I don’t and the authorities do.

    Which is disingenuous. Think of all the moonbats who parade around with signs claiming jews and Israelis are nazis. It’s hurtful, distasteful, but not threatening. So, how is throwing a Koran in a toilet qualify as threatening in any reasonable person’s mind. The so called “authorities” are playing to political correctness and allowing CAIR a

    sam (7428a7)

  16. The so called “authorities” are playing to political correctness and allowing the CAIR quacks to call the shots.

    sam (7428a7)

  17. Supposedly this kid has been quick to criticize those who speak about the Koran without having read it. That’s an odd position for a guy who’s supposedly intimidating Muslims.

    I don’t suppose this guy was trying to stir something up, like when a black student paints a “KKK” on their own door.

    Or do I?

    spongeworthy (45b30e)

  18. My biggest problem with “Hate Crime” legislation is that it implies that black gangsters who murder black children in arbitrary drive-bys are somehow more virtuous than white or Latino gangsters who murder black children in a drive-by. Having worked in South LA and having watched children die like that, the hatred transcends the silly laws that well-meaning politicians think are important.

    “Hate Crime Laws” may make some people feel better, but it does nothing to alleviate hate or crime.

    Clark Baker (aed821)

  19. Hate Crime = Thought Crime. It’s as simple as that. He has been charged with thinking unacceptable thoughts.

    Stephen Macklin (fc20a6)

  20. This whole incident should be viewed as a positive. This will give people a clear understanding of what happens when you let PC thinking run amok, and what happens when one religion, Islam, demands a hyper-tolerance of their beliefs, while simultaneously other religious voices are being drowned out.

    JD (26820f)

  21. If this young man had placed his own copy of the Koran in the toilet, and they let loose a big ole stinky Pelosi all over it, could he have been charged with anything ?

    JD (26820f)

  22. sam:

    Which is disingenuous. Think of all the moonbats who parade around with signs claiming jews and Israelis are nazis. It’s hurtful, distasteful, but not threatening. So, how is throwing a Koran in a toilet qualify as threatening in any reasonable person’s mind. The so called “authorities” are playing to political correctness and allowing CAIR a

    Do you understand or recognize the difference between neo-nazis holding a march downtown vs. drawing a swastika on a jewish student’s door?

    Fco (201cb0)

  23. So who’s door was desecrated in this event? Did this young man know that a Muslim would be using the toilet after him, or was he desecrating the toilet with the Koran?

    JD (26820f)

  24. Threatening to Muslims? This is projection. The only reason Muslims are given special consideration is that opposing them involves risking your life. Why didn’t more newspapers publish the dreaded Danish cartoons?

    Terorists get what they want through fear and fear alone. Terrorists are not protested, they are fought.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  25. Stanislav Shmulevich is an immigrant who is charged a crime.

    Should he be deported back to the Ukraine if he’s convicted?

    alphie (015011)

  26. Shorter Fco: Sign me up the jizya!

    I'm Geekier (8364b5)

  27. Is he dangerous? Is it a deportable crime?

    You can answer that question for yourself, alphie, if you look at the arguments that have been presented for the deportation of criminals.

    But in short, the law should be followed.

    Pablo (99243e)

  28. Fco wrote: My $0.02 however, the acts are not protected under free speech when they are targeted at specific individuals and is meant to frighten or threaten. Like raising your fist at someone with the seeming intent to strike them, even if you dont, can still be considered assault.

    I’m a Christian, but you can barbecue a Bible on the sidewalk in front of my house, and I wouldn’t feel like a victim of “assault.” Muslims shouldn’t have a bigger legal hammer than us infidels simply because we’re not as sensitive toward inanimate objects.

    Such relative and ethereal definitions of victimhood is the problem with “hate crime”: It allows someone to simply whine, “I’m frightened!” or “I’m threatened!” and BAM! Instant felony charge. This especially creates an civil rights imbalance when it comes to so-called “protected classes”; non-white, non-Christian, non-citizen, etc. Some victims are more equal than others.

    I wish I could PayPal you change for your 2 cents, but I’d have to give you less than one. Oh well.

    L.N. Smithee (24f0d7)

  29. Re: “The accusation is that the Koran was defaced not as protest or statement about anything, which would then be protected speech. But as a threat to particular Muslims on campus.”

    Other threats to particular Muslims on campus and are therefore hate crimes:

    * Women without Burkas.
    * Women who can read and write.
    * Women who attend classes.
    * Women with jobs.
    * Women who drive cars.
    * Women who leave their homes without a family male escort.
    * Women who date and marry whomever they please.
    * Women who have sex outside of marriage.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  30. CAIR and these Saudi funded “Student” groups are playing with fire. We see just a bit of it with the uproar over the arms package for the Saudis. The backlash will eventually come and it will make the immigration debate look mild. All it takes is one of these “students” to commit an atrocity. That will happen. It’s just a question of when.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  31. I think that by diluting the current story to the three lines you have used you are removing the alledged hate component of the actions of that man.

    1- Man burns a cross in his backyard
    2- White man burns a cross in front of a house where black people reside.

    Those two aren’t the same story either.

    AnoymousCoward (d04c4d)

  32. Perfect Sense,

    What you wrote might be funny, but it’s clearly not true in a general sense. While most muslims care for the Koran, most of the items you wrote are only problematic for a small subset of muslims. (and I am sure all the items you wrote wouldn’t bother the majority of muslims in America)

    In Iran, which I am sure you will agree is one of the most fanatic countries, woman can drive, read, write, study or have jobs.

    As for some the last one you wrote, I thought it would be all the people for family values that would be offended by premarital sex!

    AnoymousCoward (d04c4d)

  33. MikeK,

    The Saudis are doing the Republicans a favor by buying $20 billion of Republican state produced weapons.

    They could get better and cheaper weapons elsewhere.

    The purchase is, in effect, an inducement to continue doing the Saudi’s business in the Middle East.

    alphie (015011)

  34. Smithee:

    I’m a Christian, but you can barbecue a Bible on the sidewalk in front of my house, and I wouldn’t feel like a victim of “assault.” Muslims shouldn’t have a bigger legal hammer than us infidels simply because we’re not as sensitive toward inanimate objects.

    So maybe you might think african-americans are being over-sensitive when they find a burning cross on their sidewalk?

    A burning bible may not bother you. How about an effigy with your name on it hanged from the neck?

    Obviously Shmulevich’s action is nowhere near the examples I’m giving. But the line is subjective on what is “threatening”. And I agree that the “victims” have seriously overreached that line just to paint themselves as victims.

    The point I was trying to make in the line you quoted is that there is a difference between speech meant as a statement or protest vs. speech aimed at specific individuals. Therefore those who are bringing up the flag burners or “Jews are nazis” chanters are comparning apples and oranges. Shmulevich had a beef with particular muslims he knew at campus, and the prank was directed at them. Now they’re milking the situation for all they can.

    Such relative and ethereal definitions of victimhood is the problem with “hate crime”: It allows someone to simply whine, “I’m frightened!” or “I’m threatened!” and BAM! Instant felony charge. This especially creates an civil rights imbalance when it comes to so-called “protected classes”; non-white, non-Christian, non-citizen, etc. Some victims are more equal than others.

    Agreed.

    Keep the $0.02. 🙂

    Fco (201cb0)

  35. Anonymous Coward – Was the toilet in question a Muslim only toilet ?

    JD (f44699)

  36. It appears that CAIR is working hard to suppress criticism. We are going to have to put together opposition to CAIR’s efforts across the ideological spectrum.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  37. Fco wrote: So maybe you might think african-americans are being over-sensitive when they find a burning cross on their sidewalk?

    A burning bible may not bother you. How about an effigy with your name on it hanged from the neck?…Obviously Shmulevich’s action is nowhere near the examples I’m giving.

    Exactly.

    I am black (or, African-American — I’ll answer to either), and cross-burnings are a well-known tactic of domestic terrorist organizations. A burning cross in itself IS a threat; an effigy with a name is as well. A pooped-on Quran is a foul and bigoted act without a doubt, but it is far from being recognized as a harbinger of truly violent acts towards Muslims.

    Shmulevich had a beef with particular muslims he knew at campus, and the prank was directed at them.

    Doing schtuff to get people really pissed at you isn’t nice, but it shouldn’t be a felony.

    L.N. Smithee (24f0d7)

  38. Do you understand or recognize the difference between neo-nazis holding a march downtown vs. drawing a swastika on a jewish student’s door?

    Why, yes. Yes, I do. JD appears to have answered for me. Thanks, JD!

    sam (7428a7)

  39. “It’s one thing to do these kinds of exhibitions and put them up as “art”, and another to leave them for someone with the intent to offend or hurt them specifically.”

    Oh for godsake, be honest – this so called ‘art’ is about as much as a statement with willfully implicit intent to provoke – that the provocation manifested itself in anger, infuriation and outrage only sadly gave the ‘creator'(for lack of better word) of the crap a false sense of smugness thinking, oh yeah, I pissed them off alright. Worse though, he is now no doubt convinced he is a bona fide artiste.

    So, how do you know the koran in the john wasn’t art or just a statement? Who gets to make that assertion or estimation? Who determines motives?

    Dana (b4a26c)

  40. In order to protest this hate crime, I am going to place slices of ham and bacon between the pages in my Koran, and leave it in a toilet in a public restroom. If a non-muslim uses the toilet next I should be alright. If a Muslim finds it, I will be waiting for the ACLU to pick up my defense.

    JD (f44699)

  41. Dana:

    So, how do you know the koran in the john wasn’t art or just a statement? Who gets to make that assertion or estimation? Who determines motives?

    Because he said so:

    When questioned by police, Mr. Shmulevich, 23, “admitted to committing said acts” and “that he committed the acts out of anger toward a group of Muslim students with whom he had had a recent disagreement,” the criminal complaint said.

    http://wpherald.com/articles/5548/1/Man-who-desecrated-Koran-charged-with-hate-crime/Muslim-holy-book-placed-in-toilets.html

    Fco (201cb0)

  42. There’s a wide gulf between, “They pissed me off,” and, “I’m threatening them with harm.”

    I'm Geekier (74c853)

  43. Does that apply to Saddam and Iraq, Geekier?

    alphie (015011)

  44. Alphie, you really need to troll a bit better than that…

    H2U (81b7bd)

  45. fco – How does that amount to a specific threat against an individual? Did that group lay some sort of claim to that specific toilet or restroom? How does throwing a Koran in a toilet threaten Muslims? Were they afraid of an outbreak of swirlies?

    JD (a71458)

  46. Yeah, I agree, H2U.

    I tried to find some reference to poop being used as a political statement, but only found a void.

    Is crapping on something you disagree with common practice in some countries?

    Kinda like the Iraqis and the shoe thingy, it might be a cultural insult lost on most Americans.

    alphie (015011)

  47. Alphie,

    If South Park is any indicator of common practice, Americans prefer their poop-related political statements in the form of a sandwich.

    H2U (81b7bd)

  48. Is crapping on something you disagree with common practice in some countries?

    Are there any where it isn’t?

    Fco (5960fb)

  49. If this is a hate crime, then so is say, Director Milos Forman’s “Goyas Ghosts” which depicts Christianity as debased and debauched and hateful and full of rape and violence against women.

    If we charge Shumelivich, a Jew with no money, for a hate crime, by Muslim police officers, then we have to also charge Forman the famous and rich director, and also Andres Serrano for Piss Christ and the artist and museum officials who put together Dung Madonna.

    OTHERWISE we have State Protected Religions. One religion: Islam that is the State Religion. Protected from “blasphemy” under the laughable rubric of a hate crime.

    Let’s get down to it: Liberals HATE HATE HATE Christianity and Judaism and take no opportunity to do the same thing Shumulevich is accused of every day: in museums, schools, parks, offices, public places.

    But dunk a koran in a toilet, that’s a “hate crime” and Islam as the Dominant STATE RELIGION requires all non-Muslims to punish the blasphemer.

    Or Muslims will start killing people. That’s what it’s all about.

    Lesson: for Christians and Jews to receive the same treatment they have to make their threats to kill people realistic (i.e. they will have to behave like Muslims).

    Or, we could toss the suit and fire the Muslim police officer who let Islam dictate his actions (hatred towards Jews as Muslims all have). I mean come on, the arrestee is a Jew, the officer a Muslim.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  50. Why are some people so afraid of pissing off a Muslim? It is alright to piss of Christians, Joooooooooooos, and practically every other religion on the planet, but piss on a Koran and the hate crime police come out. I guess Christians and the Joooooooooooooooos don’t go strap a bunch of explosives to their vests, and go sit in a crowded pizzeria or on public transportation until it goes off. They really seem to have some anger management issues.

    JD (26820f)

  51. And if it were a bible being defaced by a muslim and the arresting officer was an evangelical?

    If the evangelical were picked for that reason, yes, it would be a problem. Not that that’s going to happen in my lifetime!

    Apparently the detective who made the arrest was picked to do such specifically because he was a Muslim, or else why did the press release mention it? IOW political correctness here, not law, ruled the day.

    Furthermore, if motivation is the key element, why can’t charges be filed against those who hold up signs saying Death to America, in light of 9/11 and subsequent killings across America? It intimidates me (and newspapers, too, if their timidity in printing the Mohammed cartoons is any indication).

    Are we supposed to be above bullying, but Muslims not?

    Patricia (824fa1)

  52. It is neither a hate crime nor free speech.

    No persons were in the “zone of danger” of being defecated upon or flushed down a toilet — only inanimate pieces of paper with ink smears called “letters” on them.

    On the other hand, I would hate to have someone break into my house, rip out my new Amish cherry kitchen cabinets and granite countertops and claim that it was his First Amendment protected protest against my “large carbon footprint” lifestyle.

    The jerk is guilty of theft — not vandalism. He took property without the owner’s permission with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. In Illinois, there would also be a case for burglary. He entered unlawfully to commit a theft (bootstrapping but it’s been upheld — intent to commit theft renders an otherwise lawful entry unlawful which with the intent to commit a theft makes it burglary).

    He should have bought his own Korans.

    nk (173e2a)

  53. nk – Given the way this has played out, do you really see a different result if this guy had run over to Borders, bought 10 Korans, and did the same thing with them? I know the idea of the ownership of the Koran plays to the underlying charge, but this has been portrayed as an incitement against specific Muslims. These Muslims did not know, or even care who owned the Koran in question, it was all about their getting the vapors when their beloved Koran was desecrated.

    JD (26820f)

  54. JD #53,

    As a lawyer, I look at the substance of the charge under American law. Sure, the jihadis and dhimmies can yammer but once it gets before a judge the question is: “So what law was broken how? Cite the statute and allege the acts of the defendant in violation of each and every of its elements.” I am fairly confident that the hate-crime charge will be dismissed but theft or vandalism will be upheld.

    nk (173e2a)

  55. If I dropped a deuce in the Muslim foot-washing thingy. Would that make me a felon?

    MJBrutus (63f237)

  56. nk,

    I am fairly confident that the hate-crime charge will be dismissed but theft or vandalism will be upheld.

    That appears to be the correct outcome.

    JD,

    nk – Given the way this has played out, do you really see a different result if this guy had run over to Borders, bought 10 Korans, and did the same thing with them? I know the idea of the ownership of the Koran plays to the underlying charge, but this has been portrayed as an incitement against specific Muslims.

    It should be a different result – no charges whatsoever. This can be characterized as an insult intended toward specific Muslims but it can only be considered incitement if you assume that the incitees are unhinged to begin with.

    In other words, you’d have to expect them to lose their minds over a paperback in a crapper.

    Pablo (99243e)

  57. Islamic interferance in the American Way of Life has been occuring for some time. The increasing visibility of this is due to a convergence of liberal and Isalmic activists.

    Muslims are becoming more involved in organizations which are traditionally liberal. From these positions they can move the organizations goals so they reflect Islam friendly attitudes. The ACLU is a case in point. I believe the head of the ACLU in Florida is a Muslim and the spokeswoman for the ACLU in the state where the public university is installing footbaths is also a Muslim (She said she could not see any problem with the stte paying for footbaths). There may be lots more but these are two that I know of.

    The policeman who arrested the Koran flushing guy is also a Muslim. I read somewhere that after the initial investigation the hate crimes unit was called in. Does this mean that that the Muslim policeman was the only guy on the hate crimes unit, or was everyone else on holiday the day they had to arrest a Jew for an alleged hate crime against Muslims.

    Do not make the assumption that the case will be thrown out of court. A liberal judge may well go let the case proceed, where hopefully it will be kicked out at the appellate level.

    davod (5bdbd3)

  58. Re: “The increasing visibility of this is due to a convergence of liberal and Isalmic activists.

    Muslims are becoming more involved in organizations which are traditionally liberal.”

    How true this is to me, as well. Yet – what a confounding situation. The most liberal, and generally opposed to religous implications aligning with the most intollerant/conservative of all religions/Islam to the detriment of the vast majority of the centrist people in America.

    smee (fa1133)

  59. I say there should be a movement of people taking “their own” Korans and dumping them in toilets in public places all over this country. Talk about sending CAIR, and other sanctimonious groups akin, including the ACLU and nitwit judges – a message!!!

    Hey, if Christianity can be defiled, and defaced in the name of protests and art – ergo – freedom of expression – then so can Islam. Besides there needs to be some toughening up of these hypersensitive religious zelots. As a Christian I have had to learn that “tolerance” is to be expected by me. It is time for a “fairness doctrine” in this same context to be upheld.

    I hope more people will see the clip of the Imam who stated on video that they intend to use our own laws here in the US to embolden theirs and defeat ours – after-all their montra is “democracy/hypocracy” – (it is self defeating, and cannot stand and we will prove it. = paraphrasing that).

    Well, they are here to prove it, and the ACLU ect.., and liberal judges are helping them.

    smee (fa1133)

  60. Had this young man took a deuce on a Bible, the ACLU would be out in front of every camera they could find defending him.

    JD (26820f)

  61. Can anyone explain to me, in rational terms, why the ACLU is not right out in front defending this fellow?

    JD (26820f)

  62. Re: “Can anyone explain to me, in rational terms, why the ACLU is not right out in front defending this fellow?”

    JD – my take – in so many words, liberals have more in common with the other irrational ideologies, and the like-minded (ie. siding with extremists, or extremists viewpoints). They almost always side with the criminal, not the victim (to the rational person), the military detained jihadists who want to kill us, not the US soldiers – use thier legal energies against our government, not for it – and here, aligning with CAIR to give unfair and biased protectionism to one group over others.

    They align against Christianity issues and Christians in general – yet, are always for Muslims, and Islam issues. They hate the conservative, religious American and constantly battle to stiffel them/it, and remove it from the public – yet, align with conservative in Islam and are on the side of Muslims – fighting for their religion and their religious issues – and to protect it in public.

    Savage calls this mind set a disease, I will say Mark Levin describes them best (that whole liberal mindset which is behind the ACLU, ect..

    So, why aren’t they defending this fellow? simply put – they are on the other side!

    smee (7ef1b3)

  63. Just in case anyone didn’t know of this site for Mark Levin – there are audio clip sections from some of Marks radio programs: http://marklevinfan.com/

    As a suggestion, start with the clip from 8/1/07 re: “Mark Levin met with President George W, Bush” at this link = http://marklevinfan.com/?p=2258 & http://marklevinfan.com/?p=2238 – from 7/20/07, The 39 anti-American demoncrats in the “Imperial Congress”.

    Does this guy ever send you on an intellectual/emotional rollercoaster ride?(he has some Winston Churchill type commentary, with much more passion, though – makes me both proud and pissed about this country and what is going on – geeze can he stoke the fires) With his constitutional lawyer background and his sharp wit -(esp. when he tears into a “lib”)- he is unmatched on talk radio, in my opinion. No wonder Sean H. calls him the great one.

    smee (7ef1b3)

  64. Can anyone explain to me, in rational terms, why the ACLU is not right out in front defending this fellow?

    Sure. This guy had a problem with some Muslims, and stole and vandalized their Korans as a result. These acts were employed specifically to antagonize Muslim people on the basis of their being Muslim (read: discrimination based on religion). Thus, they fall under current federal hate crime legislation, just as a racially motivated crime would, or a crime in which somebody stole a crucifix and desecrated it in order to antagonize Christians.

    As it is the ACLU’s mission is to defend the Bill of Rights, rather than the purpetrators of hate crimes (operative word: crimes, not just parading Nazis), they have absolutely no reason to get involved in the defense of this miserable bastard.

    Tom (e0527c)

  65. Tom – This clown did not steal the Muslims Koran. It was the school’s Koran. As the school was the victim of the crime, unless Pace has changed from a school to a mosque, I fail to see how the victim was targeted because of their religion.

    JD (f44699)

  66. smee, your arguments are ideological instead of rational. Simplistic pontificating may be fun (seriously, who doesn’t love that?), but dude…your premise that all the libruls, the ACLU, criminals, jihadists, etc., are all in the same America/Christian-hating boat is, for lack of a better word, totally wack. Maybe you should break away from the right-wing talk radio once in a while and try for a more balanced perspective. Try taking a cue from our host, who at least backs up his statements with logic rather than pointless vitriol.

    Tom (9f2a33)

  67. JD, as others have pointed out, this guy already admitted that his intended victim wasn’t the school, but rather the Muslims with whom he was angry. You can argue that religiously motivated acts of theft/vandalism ought not to be considered hate crimes, but I think in this case, it’s pretty clear that he did what he did out of religious discrimination.

    Tom (e0527c)

  68. PS: you are correct to point out that, unlike what I said, he didn’t steal the Muslim’s personal Korans (as far as we know), but rather those from a meditation room at Pace. Still, the act was supposed to antagonize his intended (and admitted) targets on the basis of their being Muslim, and as such, it meets the legal criteria of being a hate crime.

    Getting back to your main question though, regardless, the ACLU clearly has no business defending him.

    Tom (e0527c)

  69. Tom – Thanks fpr the first rational response. I would take issue with the idea of the “intended” target. There was no underlying crime against the Muslims, and the actual victim, the school, was not Muslim. To this writer, this is not treading the line of thought crime, it absolutely is a thought crime.

    JD (868cea)

  70. Still, the act was supposed to antagonize his intended (and admitted) targets on the basis of their being Muslim, and as such, it meets the legal criteria of being a hate crime.

    No, it really doesn’t. The law doesn’t talk about offending and/or antagonizing. It talks about enhancing the penalty based on the selection of the victim.

    The intolerable truth is that in these crimes, commonly and justly referred to as “hate crimes”, victims are intentionally selected, in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation.

    The victim is Pace and Pace is not muslim. more:

    They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society.

    No one is physically or emotionally damaged. They’re simply offended, and the offended party is not the victim.

    There is no right to freedom from offense. This is simple vandalism, nothing more.

    Pablo (99243e)

  71. Pablo and JD, I see your points, and don’t wholly disagree. The sticking point for me is that this guy clearly acted with intent to marginalize the Muslims with whom he was angry, on the basis of their being Muslim. Whether or not it qualifies as a technical hate crime can be debated–if so, it’s admittedly pretty low-key, as far as hate crimes can go (torture, assault, murder, etc.).

    However, federal hate crimes aside, I know that acts of bigotry based on religion, race, sexual identity, etc. wouldn’t have been tolerated at the school I went to…maybe Pace ought to take disciplinary action as well.

    Tom (3e10c8)

  72. Tom – pontificating is what goes on in bloging – but, alas you knew that didn’t you dude, snort, snort. And I do try to keep mine simple,
    glad that came through. Though I find liberals are usually quicker to go into personal attack/insult mode, in my experience, I have become used to it from various posting. But,I did not lump “all” liberals together, nor ever mention all, in my arguments. So don’t inject that into my argument – not looking to get into an argument here, over arguments. (it takes the fun out of pontificating if it turns too argumentative)
    I do apologize if I didn’t make it simple enough to be clear that my context was to the liberal approach/mission/hierarcy of the ACLU viewed
    by many – which is well known as controversal, and is hotly debated – including a perceived direction they have been spotted heading, by
    more than a few wack right-wingers.

    My comment/arguments were to the question/context of the ACLU’s position, or lack thereof :

    Re: “Can anyone explain to me, in rational terms,
    why the ACLU is not right out in front defending this fellow?”

    While some may take the position that the ACLU is such a neutral, and unbiased crusader for justice, and the “bill of rights”, they are met
    with an equal number of people who think otherwise. And notice of the ACLU being run by left leaning, liberals and even some self proclaimed socialists is quite well established.
    Your arguments are not absolute, and without challenge. You are, also, wrong to preclude “Maybe you should break away from the right-wing talk radio once in a while and try for a more balanced perspective” — I listen to very little talk radio, as I work for a living. And I watch much more CNN than I
    listen to talk radio. Because I quote a few examples, you made a false assupmtion about me – shame on you.

    It is so disheartening to me that I come accoss more ideological than rational. Especially when there is much information, and
    opinions which support arguments I have made. Not to mention film footage as evidence, ie.: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XRYARwdcB40

    (When people like this tell you, and the world via film, how they are conspiring against you, and you don’t take them serious – you are the
    one that is wack!! If you don’t think they have their influence, and agendas being pushed into, and through, our courts – ongoing in full
    throttle pursuit of this goal – you are one that is wack!!) – Like the 6 Imams situation on the plane, the attempt to cut out “John Doe” protection, Cair trying to silence speech they don’t like, ect.. are just normal litigation situations – and not efforts of an agenda – yea, right!! One could suggest that coming up for fresh air from the daily kos, and huffington post left-wing kool-aid stands could maybe help those not already too far gone from reality – but, I won’t.

    There is a “simple” old saying “you are known by the company you keep”. Simple logic like that still works in this modern,
    sophisticated age we are in. So, keep an eye out for those alignments, they can tell much, just saying.

    It is a no brainer, even to me, that this kid was in the wrong for taking something not his and defacing it. But, it is a worthwhile consideration to suppose that
    had this been a Muslim flushing the bible (reversed situation) – would the ACLU have come to his defense, based on a perception they have established about themselves. Obviously there would be serious bias implications with different actions. The cases/issues taken by the ACLU, or not – as well as the side of the issue the ACLU takes is always going to be scrutinized, as it should. They have brought that deserved scrutiny on themselves. The philosophical, or ideological reason the ACLU does, or does not take an issue side may be as much a consideration as the legal. ie. perhaps they did not want to take that students’ case and take the chance of winning more freedom of expression without a hate crime tag added to an instant like this – and/or perhaps because of pressure from, say a pro-Muslim activist group like CAIR, or like sources, expressed to take a certain position, or no position of an issue. So, call me a cynical, biased right-winger if you want – but that does not change the cause/effect the ACLU has had in the shaping of our legal issues, and precedent outcome (whether good or bad in opinion). And, that they have a history of controversial socialist ideologues within, and are viewed by some to have a democracy adverse pushing agenda. Have fought hard against this administration, against many consevative judges/nominees, and rarely against the liberal, and pushed for more rights and due process for murdering jihadist who only want to destroy and kill us, weaked counter terrism measures, ect… A rosy unbaised portait of them, therefore, is rejected.

    It is worth repeating again that radically minded Muslims have publically expressed their intent on using our own laws and freedoms against us in our country. And they are not using conservatives. They are using the activist, liberal democrat predominate organizations, and appointments. And the ACLU has had their fair share of criticism in this regard long before me. So, go ahead and throw that right-wing bs around – but, the devil is in the details, to coin another simple phrase.

    You can label all you want regarding ideology and opinions, and throw out your personal attacks, and insults (whether ideolgical, or intellectual) – but, it has no real bearing on what is.

    I took the liberty of posting some links below that arguably take issues of my arguments from the ideological to the rational. Of course, to a rational “right winged” person in my opinion – to back up my arguments. No doubt there will come the charge ” they are all wack right-winged propagana examples”.

    In the end I agree with this conclusion from Pablo regarding the toilet koran fwiw: “No one is physically or emotionally damaged. They’re simply offended, and the offended party is not the victim.
    There is no right to freedom from offense. This is simple vandalism, nothing more.”

    So, I am done with my right wing pontificating, and I must admit – it was fun, dude!

    ————————————————–

    http://www.acluprocon.org/overview.htm
    http://www.acluprocon.org/top10.htm
    http://www.acluprocon.org/

    There are places one can get unbiased information, thereby make rational decisions – and yet, still be seen as biased by others.
    And one can come to conclusions that are much more rational than ideological, regardless of his/her ideology, or biases he/she
    was exposed to – whether rational or not from your perspective, and be less biased than you.

    http://www.stoptheaclu.org/
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=ACLU
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/04/the_aclus_antireligious_hypocr.html
    http://arosebyname.blogspot.com/2006/01/aclu-hypocrisy.html
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17215
    http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/aclu-should-stay-true-to-its-radical-communist-roots
    http://www.restoringamerica.org/ACLU/stop_the_american_civil_libertie.htm
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48098

    smee (feaae5)

  73. Tom – pontificating is what goes on in bloging – but, alas you knew that didn’t you dude, snort, snort. And I do try to keep mine simple,
    glad that came through. Though I find liberals are usually quicker to go into personal attack/insult mode, in my experience, I have become used to it from various posting. But,I did not lump “all” liberals together, nor ever mention all, in my arguments. So don’t inject that into my argument – not looking to get into an argument here, over arguments. (it takes the fun out of pontificating if it turns too argumentative)
    I do apologize if I didn’t make it simple enough to be clear that my context was to the liberal approach/mission/hierarcy of the ACLU viewed
    by many – which is well known as controversal, and is hotly debated – including a perceived direction they have been spotted heading, by
    more than a few wack right-wingers.

    My comment/arguments were to the question/context of the ACLU’s position, or lack thereof :

    Re: “Can anyone explain to me, in rational terms,
    why the ACLU is not right out in front defending this fellow?”

    While some may take the position that the ACLU is such a neutral, and unbiased crusader for justice, and the “bill of rights”, they are met
    with an equal number of people who think otherwise. And notice of the ACLU being run by left leaning, liberals and even some self proclaimed socialists is quite well established.
    Your arguments are not absolute, and without challenge. You are, also, wrong to preclude “Maybe you should break away from the right-wing talk radio once in a while and try for a more balanced perspective” — I listen to very little talk radio, as I work for a living. And I watch much more CNN than I
    listen to talk radio. Because I quote a few examples, you made a false assupmtion about me – shame on you.

    It is so disheartening to me that I come accoss more ideological than rational. Especially when there is much information, and
    opinions which support arguments I have made. Not to mention film footage as evidence, ie.: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XRYARwdcB40

    (When people like this tell you, and the world via film, how they are conspiring against you, and you don’t take them serious – you are the
    one that is wack!! If you don’t think they have their influence, and agendas being pushed into, and through, our courts – ongoing in full
    throttle pursuit of this goal – you are one that is wack!!) – Like the 6 Imams situation on the plane, the attempt to cut out “John Doe” protection, Cair trying to silence speech they don’t like, ect.. are just normal litigation situations – and not efforts of an agenda – yea, right!! One could suggest that coming up for fresh air from the daily kos, and huffington post left-wing kool-aid stands could maybe help those not already too far gone from reality – but, I won’t.

    There is a “simple” old saying “you are known by the company you keep”. Simple logic like that still works in this modern,
    sophisticated age we are in. So, keep an eye out for those alignments, they can tell much, just saying.

    It is a no brainer, even to me, that this kid was in the wrong for taking something not his and defacing it. But, it is a worthwhile consideration to suppose that
    had this been a Muslim flushing the bible (reversed situation) – would the ACLU have come to his defense, based on a perception they have established about themselves. Obviously there would be serious bias implications with different actions. The cases/issues taken by the ACLU, or not – as well as the side of the issue the ACLU takes is always going to be scrutinized, as it should. They have brought that deserved scrutiny on themselves. The philosophical, or ideological reason the ACLU does, or does not take an issue side may be as much a consideration as the legal. ie. perhaps they did not want to take that students’ case and take the chance of winning more freedom of expression without a hate crime tag added to an instant like this – and/or perhaps because of pressure from, say a pro-Muslim activist group like CAIR, or like sources, expressed to take a certain position, or no position of an issue. So, call me a cynical, biased right-winger if you want – but that does not change the cause/effect the ACLU has had in the shaping of our legal issues, and precedent outcome (whether good or bad in opinion). And, that they have a history of controversial socialist ideologues within, and are viewed by some to have a democracy adverse pushing agenda. Have fought hard against this administration, against many consevative judges/nominees, and rarely against the liberal, and pushed for more rights and due process for murdering jihadist who only want to destroy and kill us, weaked counter terrism measures, ect… A rosy unbaised portait of them, therefore, is rejected.

    It is worth repeating again that radically minded Muslims have publically expressed their intent on using our own laws and freedoms against us in our country. And they are not using conservatives. They are using the activist, liberal democrat predominate organizations, and appointments. And the ACLU has had their fair share of criticism in this regard long before me. So, go ahead and throw that right-wing bs around – but, the devil is in the details, to coin another simple phrase.

    You can label all you want regarding ideology and opinions, and throw out your personal attacks, and insults (whether ideolgical, or intellectual) – but, it has no real bearing on what is.

    I took the liberty of posting some links below that arguably take issues of my arguments from the ideological to the rational. Of course, to a rational “right winged” person in my opinion – to back up my arguments. No doubt there will come the charge ” they are all wack right-winged propagana examples”.

    In the end I agree with this conclusion from Pablo regarding the toilet koran fwiw: “No one is physically or emotionally damaged. They’re simply offended, and the offended party is not the victim.
    There is no right to freedom from offense. This is simple vandalism, nothing more.”

    So, I am done with my right wing pontificating, and I must admit – it was fun, dude!

    ————————————————–acluprocon.org/overview.htm
    acluprocon.org/top10.htm
    acluprocon.org/

    There are places one can get unbiased information, thereby make rational decisions – and yet, still be seen as biased by others.
    And one can come to conclusions that are much more rational than ideological, regardless of his/her ideology, or biases he/she
    was exposed to – whether rational or not from your perspective, and be less biased than you.

    stoptheaclu.org/
    freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=ACLU
    americanthinker.com/2006/04/the_aclus_antireligious_hypocr.html
    arosebyname.blogspot.com/2006/01/aclu-hypocrisy.html
    humanevents.com/article.php?id=17215
    sweetness-light.com/archive/aclu-should-stay-true-to-its-radical-communist-roots
    restoringamerica.org/ACLU/stop_the_american_civil_libertie.htm
    worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48098

    smee (feaae5)

  74. Just on the “hate-crime” nonsense. In law school, I wrote for the underground newspaper which was a parody of the official paper. One article was a mockery of women lawyers. I suggested that trials would be so much more fun if two lady lawyers would mud wrestle for the case. I got a lot of flack from the female students. One threatened to castrate me. She had a very good figure so I paid a lot less attention to her threat than I did to her physical attributes. Nobody went sniveling to the administration. But then none of us were aggressive beggars alternately wheedling the strong and threatening the weak, like CAIR.

    nk (173e2a)

  75. Pablo and JD, I see your points, and don’t wholly disagree. The sticking point for me is that this guy clearly acted with intent to marginalize the Muslims with whom he was angry, on the basis of their being Muslim.

    How are they marginalized? He acted to offend them. Not the same thing.

    Does a Bible in a toilet marginalize Christians or Christianity? Of course not. It offends them, and nothing else.

    Pablo (99243e)

  76. One threatened to castrate me. She had a very good figure so I paid a lot less attention to her threat than I did to her physical attributes.

    Wow, you’re classy. [/gag]

    Tom (9f2a33)

  77. Wow, you’re classy. [/gag]

    Just a normal 24-year old (then). Not afraid of girls, liking the way they looked, and not afraid to look at them or talk to them.

    nk (173e2a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1424 secs.