https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

Sloan Rachmuth, a Jewish journalist and political commentator, was arrested at her home in front of her terrified children on November 3, 2024. Her alleged crime? According to Rachmuth, she objected to a supermarket employee at Harris Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh, a political symbol widely
associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the Jewish
people worldwide.

Rachmuth, an outspoken advocate against antisemitism and a contributor to national media outlets on Middle Eastern affairs, explained to RAIR Foundation in an exclusive interview that she was handcuffed, marched through her neighborhood, and charged with cyberstalking after she posted about the troubling incident online.

Rachmuth explained the police never asked for her side of the story, nor investigated the credibility of the alleged victim. Her arrest was based
solely on an unverified accusation, raising serious concerns about law enforcement's complicity in this apparent retaliation.

Rather than uphold its corporate attire and political expression policies, Harris Teeter-- a subsidiary of The Kroger Co., the largest supermarket chain in America-- ignored its regulations. Indeed, Harris Teeter allowed an
employee to wear a threatening symbol of Islamic and Palestinian terrorism, visibly wrapping it around her head while working with customers.

Rachmuth describes this as not just corporate censorship or police overreach but state-backed antisemitic persecution and the criminalization of those who publicly object to terror support and antisemitism.

On October 31, 2024, Rachmuth entered Harris Teeter on Sunset Lake Road in Holly Springs, NC, a store where she had shopped regularly for seven years. According to Rachmuth, as she checked out, she noticed an employee handling food while wearing a keffiyeh-- a garment long associated with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and frequently worn by Hamas militants and supporters. In America, the keffiyeh has been used as a rallying icon for violence against Jews during demonstrations. Even countries like the United Arab Emirates and Egypt-- both Arab nations-- have banned its political use, recognizing its ties to Islamic terror groups.

Aware of its political significance, Rachmuth says she politely asked the employee, Amira M. Fattah, "It's Halloween; are you wearing this as a
costume?" Fattah replied, "No, it's for Free Palestine," confirming she wore the keffiyeh as a political statement rather than for religious reasons.

As a Jewish woman and a longtime customer, Rachmuth was deeply uncomfortable with a store employee openly supporting an ideology that symbolized the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people while handling food. While at the store, Rachmuth escalated her concerns to store manager Sheronna Irick, expecting Harris Teeter to uphold its policies against political speech in the workplace.

Instead of addressing the hostile work environment created by an employee wearing a symbol of Jewish oppression, Irick dismissed Rachmuth's complaint outright and told her, "Like it or leave."

Realizing that the store manager was indifferent to the issue, Rachmuth contacted Harris Teeter's corporate office to inform them of what had
occurred.

Frustrated by the store manager's hostile response, Rachmuth turned to social media and posted about the encounter on X (formerly Twitter). She included a photo of the employee wearing the keffiyeh--showing only the employee's profile-- along with a caption questioning the corporation's stance on political speech in the workplace.

The post quickly gained traction, sparking widespread debate about corporate complicity in antisemitism. Rather than address the concern, Harris Teeter's employees escalated the situation by calling the police in what appears to be an act of retaliation against a customer.

According to arrest records and law enforcement, store manager Sheronna Irick played a pivotal role in facilitating this retaliation and made it clear that the Harris Teeter manager's actions directly enabled Rachmuth's
falsely-charged arrest.

Three days after Rachmuth's X post, Holly Springs Police officers-- Elliott Warren, Benjamin Marino, and Edgar Hernandez-- arrived at Rachmuth's home and began pounding on her door.

To understand how this politically motivated arrest unfolded, examining events leading up to it is important.

A Timeline of the Political Arrest

October 31, 2024: Rachmuth reports that she noticed a Harris Teeter employee wearing a keffiyeh, questioned her about it, and later posted images on social media.

November 2, 2024: Holly Springs Police took a report from the employee and store manager, who alleged that Rachmuth called her a terrorist in the store-- an accusation Rachmuth vehemently denies.

The incident report officially labeled the case as ANTI-ISLAMIC (MUSLIM), suggesting that law enforcement intentionally framed the situation as a bias-motivated offense. This classification raises serious concerns about whether police exaggerated or misrepresented the nature of the allegations to justify Rachmuth's arrest. If Rachmuth's concern over a political symbol was rebranded as a 'hate crime', does this mean that simply objecting to Hamas-affiliated imagery is now considered a criminal act? The implications of such a designation are chilling-- especially given that there was no investigation into whether the allegations against her were truthful.

November 3, 2024: Officer Elliott Warren obtained an arrest warrant, accusing Rachmuth of using her cellphone to "harass, embarrass, or terrify" the employee.

Later that day: Police arrived at her home with an arrest warrant in hand, leading to what many believe was an effort to humiliate her publicly.

Rachmuth, a mother of two, says she was shocked and confused by the officers' presence. When she demanded the reason for her arrest, Officer Benjamin Marino chillingly replied, "Something you did made her uncomfortable, all right?"

Rachmuth's arrest video shows she was then handcuffed with no questions asked. She says the police paraded her through her neighborhood before taking her to Wake County Jail. Adding to the cruelty of the arrest, this occurred on her 17th wedding anniversary, as her terrified children, concerned husband and protective German Shepherd watched helplessly.

Rachmuth states that despite the alleged crime being an unarrestable misdemeanor, she was forced to pay a $1,000 cash bail-- a sum typically reserved for serious offenses-- and was treated like a violent criminal during the booking process.

Democratic activists and their media swiftly circulated her mugshot and charge sheet online, weaponizing the arrest as a political smear campaign. Major left-wing outlets, including The Independent, The Intercept, MSN, Daily Mail, and other partisan publications, immediately jumped on the bandwagon,
launching coordinated attacks against Rachmuth. They spread her mugshot far
and wide, framing her as a villain-- without even attempting to reach out to her for comment.

This rapid media blitz has left many questioning who contacted the media so swiftly and how they were able to mobilize coverage within hours of her
arrest. Just as questions linger over who at Harris Teeter initially called
the police, suspicions are growing that this was not an organic reaction but rather a carefully coordinated effort to weaponize the criminal justice system against a Jewish journalist. Many believe this was a deliberate, politically motivated attack meant to silence and intimidate her-- setting a dangerous precedent for anyone daring to expose antisemitism or radical extremism in America.

The charge against Rachmuth-- cyberstalking-- has no legal precedent or justification. The accusation alleged that she used her phone to take a photo with the intent to embarrass someone-- an assertion unsupported by any state
or federal law and one that raises serious 1st Amendment concerns.

Even Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman, a Democrat, acknowledged
the blatant injustice of the case and dropped all charges the next day,
stating that the alleged conduct did not even come close to meeting the elements of the offense.

However, this charge's legal overreach and selective enforcement remain deeply troubling. North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires repeated electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy, threaten, or harass" an individual. Rachmuth's single post about a store
policy does not meet this legal threshold. Nor was Rachmuth's post directed *at* the employee as the statute requires. It was *about* the employee but not sent *to* the employee in any way. Furthermore, legal precedents in State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced the principle that vague and overly broad interpretations of online speech statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech and press freedom.

If this charge had moved forward, it would have set a chilling precedent for journalists, activists, and citizens engaged in lawful political speech. The case raises serious questions about lawfare and the use of activist law enforcement to target political dissenters.

While Freeman ultimately dropped the charges, the fact that the Holly Springs Police Department pursued them in the first place-- despite clear constitutional and procedural concerns-- demonstrates the selective weaponization of the law to intimidate and silence individuals exposing antisemitism and Islamic radicalism. The police department has yet to acknowledge any wrongdoing in Rachmuth's case.

The damage is done. Rachmuth has been publicly humiliated, smeared as an extremist, and left to deal with the lasting emotional trauma inflicted on her and her children. Left-wing media outlets quickly distributed her mugshot and charge sheet, weaponized to destroy her credibility and intimidate others from speaking out.

The swiftness with which the media picked up the story-- without even
verifying the charge's validity--further supports the growing suspicion that this was a coordinated attack on a Jewish journalist for daring to challenge the glorification of Hamas and its genocidal ideology.

According to Rachmuth, her arrest raises serious concerns about how political and ideological biases impact law enforcement actions, particularly when it comes to Jewish Americans who challenge the normalization of anti-Jewish hostility.

Rachmuth also points to what she describes as a two-tiered justice system at play. Between 2022 and 2023, she lodged multiple detailed complaints with the Holly Springs Police Department regarding relentless harassment,
cyberstalking, and threats she received for being Jewish and having an Israeli husband. Internal documents shared with RAIR show her detailed police reports of the doxxing of her family, anti-Jewish slurs, and ongoing harassment from known perpetrators were ignored by the police chief. Emails show the police declined to take action, stating that 'no criminal North Carolina General Statutes have been violated'.

In a letter to Rachmuth dated January 9, 2023, the police admitted that they had thoroughly analyzed the documentation, consulted with the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (NC-SBI), and ultimately concluded that the harassment fell under '1st Amendment protected speech'-- even though it included threats, public exposure of personal records, and clear targeting of her family. In an email, the police chief justified inaction by citing the
need to follow a chain of command before presenting charges for judicial review.

Yet, regarding her arrest, no such legal scrutiny or procedural delay was observed, as evidenced by the charges being dropped within 24 hours. She was promptly taken into custody without the due diligence police had claimed was necessary in previous cases. The statute requires 'repeated' communication directly to a person, a requirement absent from the arrest warrant. Furthermore, North Carolina courts have overturned similar cases on constitutional grounds.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

Sloan Rachmuth, a Jewish journalist and political commentator, was
arrested at her home in front of her terrified children on November
3, 2024. Her alleged crime? According to Rachmuth, she objected to a >supermarket employee at Harris Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh,
a political symbol widely associated with Hamas and its ambitions to
destroy Israel and the Jewish people worldwide.

Clearly, her arrest was outrageous. If the supermarket clerk was making
a political statement by wearing it, the woman was allowed to make her
own statement by writing about it.

The arrest of the author was censorship.

The arrest also appears to be revenge as the woman was not allowed to
make complaints with local police when she and her husband, Israeli, had received threats, with the police chief calling the threats protected
speech.

I'm posting to raise an objection to the article calling the keffiyeh, typically a male-worn scarf, controversial and "a political symbol
widely associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the
Jewish people worldwide."

Some people who wear it believe all Jews should die, but Hamas didn't
invent the garment. Arafat used to wear one with a specific pattern
common to Palestinians. Looking it up, rural peoples in the Ottoman
Empire period wore one; those in urban areas wore a tarboosh (fez).
During the Arab Revolt of the 1930s (against the British Mandate), men
in urban areas adopted the keffiyeh and stopped wearing the tarboosh.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 6, 2025 at 1:43:41 PM PST, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-03-06 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

Sloan Rachmuth, a Jewish journalist and political commentator, was arrested >> at
her home in front of her terrified children on November 3, 2024. Her alleged
crime? According to Rachmuth, she objected to a supermarket employee at
Harris
Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh, a political symbol widely
associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the Jewish
people worldwide.

What a disgraceful episode! I hope Ms. Rachmuth sues all of the people
who harrassed her and wins a huge settlement.

The issue isn't settled until moviePig arrives to explain to us all how it "seems to him" that her arrest was valid because there was no societal utility to her post. Or something.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-06 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

Sloan Rachmuth, a Jewish journalist and political commentator, was arrested at
her home in front of her terrified children on November 3, 2024. Her alleged crime? According to Rachmuth, she objected to a supermarket employee at Harris
Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh, a political symbol widely associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the Jewish people worldwide.

Rachmuth, an outspoken advocate against antisemitism and a contributor to national media outlets on Middle Eastern affairs, explained to RAIR Foundation
in an exclusive interview that she was handcuffed, marched through her neighborhood, and charged with cyberstalking after she posted about the troubling incident online.

Rachmuth explained the police never asked for her side of the story, nor investigated the credibility of the alleged victim. Her arrest was based solely on an unverified accusation, raising serious concerns about law enforcement's complicity in this apparent retaliation.

Rather than uphold its corporate attire and political expression policies, Harris Teeter-- a subsidiary of The Kroger Co., the largest supermarket chain in America-- ignored its regulations. Indeed, Harris Teeter allowed an employee to wear a threatening symbol of Islamic and Palestinian terrorism, visibly wrapping it around her head while working with customers.

Rachmuth describes this as not just corporate censorship or police overreach but state-backed antisemitic persecution and the criminalization of those who publicly object to terror support and antisemitism.

On October 31, 2024, Rachmuth entered Harris Teeter on Sunset Lake Road in Holly Springs, NC, a store where she had shopped regularly for seven years. According to Rachmuth, as she checked out, she noticed an employee handling food while wearing a keffiyeh-- a garment long associated with the Palestinian
Liberation Organization (PLO) and frequently worn by Hamas militants and supporters. In America, the keffiyeh has been used as a rallying icon for violence against Jews during demonstrations. Even countries like the United Arab Emirates and Egypt-- both Arab nations-- have banned its political use, recognizing its ties to Islamic terror groups.

Aware of its political significance, Rachmuth says she politely asked the employee, Amira M. Fattah, "It's Halloween; are you wearing this as a costume?" Fattah replied, "No, it's for Free Palestine," confirming she wore the keffiyeh as a political statement rather than for religious reasons.

As a Jewish woman and a longtime customer, Rachmuth was deeply uncomfortable with a store employee openly supporting an ideology that symbolized the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people while handling food. While at the store, Rachmuth escalated her concerns to store manager Sheronna Irick, expecting Harris Teeter to uphold its policies against political speech in the
workplace.

Instead of addressing the hostile work environment created by an employee wearing a symbol of Jewish oppression, Irick dismissed Rachmuth's complaint outright and told her, "Like it or leave."

Realizing that the store manager was indifferent to the issue, Rachmuth contacted Harris Teeter's corporate office to inform them of what had occurred.

Frustrated by the store manager's hostile response, Rachmuth turned to social media and posted about the encounter on X (formerly Twitter). She included a photo of the employee wearing the keffiyeh--showing only the employee's profile-- along with a caption questioning the corporation's stance on political speech in the workplace.

The post quickly gained traction, sparking widespread debate about corporate complicity in antisemitism. Rather than address the concern, Harris Teeter's employees escalated the situation by calling the police in what appears to be an act of retaliation against a customer.

According to arrest records and law enforcement, store manager Sheronna Irick played a pivotal role in facilitating this retaliation and made it clear that the Harris Teeter manager's actions directly enabled Rachmuth's falsely-charged arrest.

Three days after Rachmuth's X post, Holly Springs Police officers-- Elliott Warren, Benjamin Marino, and Edgar Hernandez-- arrived at Rachmuth's home and began pounding on her door.

To understand how this politically motivated arrest unfolded, examining events
leading up to it is important.

A Timeline of the Political Arrest

October 31, 2024: Rachmuth reports that she noticed a Harris Teeter employee wearing a keffiyeh, questioned her about it, and later posted images on social
media.

November 2, 2024: Holly Springs Police took a report from the employee and store manager, who alleged that Rachmuth called her a terrorist in the store--
an accusation Rachmuth vehemently denies.

The incident report officially labeled the case as ANTI-ISLAMIC (MUSLIM), suggesting that law enforcement intentionally framed the situation as a bias-motivated offense. This classification raises serious concerns about whether police exaggerated or misrepresented the nature of the allegations to justify Rachmuth's arrest. If Rachmuth's concern over a political symbol was rebranded as a 'hate crime', does this mean that simply objecting to Hamas-affiliated imagery is now considered a criminal act? The implications of
such a designation are chilling-- especially given that there was no investigation into whether the allegations against her were truthful.

November 3, 2024: Officer Elliott Warren obtained an arrest warrant, accusing Rachmuth of using her cellphone to "harass, embarrass, or terrify" the employee.

Later that day: Police arrived at her home with an arrest warrant in hand, leading to what many believe was an effort to humiliate her publicly.

Rachmuth, a mother of two, says she was shocked and confused by the officers' presence. When she demanded the reason for her arrest, Officer Benjamin Marino
chillingly replied, "Something you did made her uncomfortable, all right?"

Rachmuth's arrest video shows she was then handcuffed with no questions asked.
She says the police paraded her through her neighborhood before taking her to Wake County Jail. Adding to the cruelty of the arrest, this occurred on her 17th wedding anniversary, as her terrified children, concerned husband and protective German Shepherd watched helplessly.

Rachmuth states that despite the alleged crime being an unarrestable misdemeanor, she was forced to pay a $1,000 cash bail-- a sum typically reserved for serious offenses-- and was treated like a violent criminal during
the booking process.

Democratic activists and their media swiftly circulated her mugshot and charge
sheet online, weaponizing the arrest as a political smear campaign. Major left-wing outlets, including The Independent, The Intercept, MSN, Daily Mail, and other partisan publications, immediately jumped on the bandwagon, launching coordinated attacks against Rachmuth. They spread her mugshot far and wide, framing her as a villain-- without even attempting to reach out to her for comment.

This rapid media blitz has left many questioning who contacted the media so swiftly and how they were able to mobilize coverage within hours of her arrest. Just as questions linger over who at Harris Teeter initially called the police, suspicions are growing that this was not an organic reaction but rather a carefully coordinated effort to weaponize the criminal justice system
against a Jewish journalist. Many believe this was a deliberate, politically motivated attack meant to silence and intimidate her-- setting a dangerous precedent for anyone daring to expose antisemitism or radical extremism in America.

The charge against Rachmuth-- cyberstalking-- has no legal precedent or justification. The accusation alleged that she used her phone to take a photo with the intent to embarrass someone-- an assertion unsupported by any state or federal law and one that raises serious 1st Amendment concerns.

Even Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman, a Democrat, acknowledged the blatant injustice of the case and dropped all charges the next day, stating that the alleged conduct did not even come close to meeting the elements of the offense.

However, this charge's legal overreach and selective enforcement remain deeply
troubling. North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires repeated electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy,
threaten, or harass" an individual. Rachmuth's single post about a store policy does not meet this legal threshold. Nor was Rachmuth's post directed *at* the employee as the statute requires. It was *about* the employee but not
sent *to* the employee in any way. Furthermore, legal precedents in State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced the principle that vague and overly broad interpretations of online speech statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech and press freedom.

If this charge had moved forward, it would have set a chilling precedent for journalists, activists, and citizens engaged in lawful political speech. The case raises serious questions about lawfare and the use of activist law enforcement to target political dissenters.

While Freeman ultimately dropped the charges, the fact that the Holly Springs Police Department pursued them in the first place-- despite clear constitutional and procedural concerns-- demonstrates the selective weaponization of the law to intimidate and silence individuals exposing antisemitism and Islamic radicalism. The police department has yet to acknowledge any wrongdoing in Rachmuth's case.

The damage is done. Rachmuth has been publicly humiliated, smeared as an extremist, and left to deal with the lasting emotional trauma inflicted on her
and her children. Left-wing media outlets quickly distributed her mugshot and charge sheet, weaponized to destroy her credibility and intimidate others from
speaking out.

The swiftness with which the media picked up the story-- without even verifying the charge's validity--further supports the growing suspicion that this was a coordinated attack on a Jewish journalist for daring to challenge the glorification of Hamas and its genocidal ideology.

According to Rachmuth, her arrest raises serious concerns about how political and ideological biases impact law enforcement actions, particularly when it comes to Jewish Americans who challenge the normalization of anti-Jewish hostility.

Rachmuth also points to what she describes as a two-tiered justice system at play. Between 2022 and 2023, she lodged multiple detailed complaints with the Holly Springs Police Department regarding relentless harassment, cyberstalking, and threats she received for being Jewish and having an Israeli
husband. Internal documents shared with RAIR show her detailed police reports of the doxxing of her family, anti-Jewish slurs, and ongoing harassment from known perpetrators were ignored by the police chief. Emails show the police declined to take action, stating that 'no criminal North Carolina General Statutes have been violated'.

In a letter to Rachmuth dated January 9, 2023, the police admitted that they had thoroughly analyzed the documentation, consulted with the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (NC-SBI), and ultimately concluded that the harassment fell under '1st Amendment protected speech'-- even though it included threats, public exposure of personal records, and clear targeting of her family. In an email, the police chief justified inaction by citing the need to follow a chain of command before presenting charges for judicial review.

Yet, regarding her arrest, no such legal scrutiny or procedural delay was observed, as evidenced by the charges being dropped within 24 hours. She was promptly taken into custody without the due diligence police had claimed was necessary in previous cases. The statute requires 'repeated' communication directly to a person, a requirement absent from the arrest warrant. Furthermore, North Carolina courts have overturned similar cases on constitutional grounds.

What a disgraceful episode! I hope Ms. Rachmuth sues all of the people
who harrassed her and wins a huge settlement.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/6/2025 4:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 6, 2025 at 1:43:41 PM PST, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-03-06 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

Sloan Rachmuth, a Jewish journalist and political commentator, was arrested
at
her home in front of her terrified children on November 3, 2024. Her alleged
crime? According to Rachmuth, she objected to a supermarket employee at >>> Harris
Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh, a political symbol widely
associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the Jewish >>> people worldwide.

What a disgraceful episode! I hope Ms. Rachmuth sues all of the people
who harrassed her and wins a huge settlement.

The issue isn't settled until moviePig arrives to explain to us all how it "seems to him" that her arrest was valid because there was no societal utility
to her post. Or something.

As if you ever let "explanations" dilute your hysteria...

Meanwhile:


https://www.wfdd.org/story/cyberstalking-charges-dropped-against-former-campaign-manager-gop-state-superintendent

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 7, 2025 at 9:43:07 AM PST, "Ed Stasiak" <[email protected]d> wrote:

BTR1701

According to Rachmuth, she objected to a supermarket employee at Harris
Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh, a political symbol widely
associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the Jewish
people worldwide.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/67/3e/19/673e19cb4548716dfa7a18f40ff3312a.jpg

And people can (and do) object to that as well. In neither case should anyone be arrested. This is the United States and we still have a 1st Amendment. It's absolutely absurd that this woman was arrested for objecting to what the 'victim' admitted was a political statement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701

According to Rachmuth, she objected to a supermarket employee at Harris Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh, a political symbol widely associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the Jewish people worldwide.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/67/3e/19/673e19cb4548716dfa7a18f40ff3312a.jpg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ed Stasiak <[email protected]d> wrote:

BTR1701

According to Rachmuth, she objected to a supermarket employee at Harris >>Teeter wearing the controversial keffiyeh, a political symbol widely >>associated with Hamas and its ambitions to destroy Israel and the Jewish >>people worldwide.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/67/3e/19/673e19cb4548716dfa7a18f40ff3312a.jpg

That's a kippah in Hebrew or yamulke in Yiddish. The garment is not
religiously required but it fulfills the religious requirement for men
to cover their heads. Any hat, covering the dome of the head (the word
kippah literally means "dome") or the entire head, with or without a
brim, fulfills the religious requirement.

The comparable garment worn by a Muslim is called a kufi.

The garment itself makes no political statement.

Oh, Ed, if you had tried really hard, you could have found pictures of
Jewish men who had gone to create a homestead in rural Palestine, either
while it was still the Ottoman Empire or under the British Mandate,
wearing a keffiyeh.

It's a cloth worn by men worn to help survive in desert conditions and
to protect from the sun. It doesn't literally have either religious nor terroristic nor nationalistic implications, even though Arafat wore it
as such a symbol.

It's possible Hamas wears it as part of a uniform but I have no idea.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

...

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

...

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the original post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case because she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged and flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.


**North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires repeated electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy,
threaten, or harass" an individual.

--Rachmuth made a single post (no repetition as the statute requires).

--Rachmuth's post was not directed *at* the employee as the statute requires. It was *about* the employee but not sent *to* the employee in any way.

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech and press freedom.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/7/2025 3:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

...

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the original
post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case because
she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged and flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.

**North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires repeated electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy, threaten, or harass" an individual.

--Rachmuth made a single post (no repetition as the statute requires).

--Rachmuth's post was not directed *at* the employee as the statute requires. It was *about* the employee but not sent *to* the employee in any way.

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.

Which, according to your link, didn't happen.

Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

...

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the original >post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case because >she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged and >flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.

But but but... she was arrested for violating moviePig law!

[Sloan] Rachmuth, a mother of two, says she was shocked and
confused by the officers' presence. When she demanded the reason
for her arrest, Officer Benjamin Marino chillingly replied,
"Something you did made her uncomfortable, all right?"

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:41:30 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/7/2025 3:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the
original
post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case
because
she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged >> and
flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.


**North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires repeated >> electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy,
threaten, or harass" an individual.

--Rachmuth made a single post (no repetition as the statute requires).

--Rachmuth's post was not directed *at* the employee as the statute
requires.
It was *about* the employee but not sent *to* the employee in any way.

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech >> and
press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.

Arresting her for cyber-stalking also violated her free speech rights.

Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

She wasn't guilty of anything regardless of your grammatical nit-picking. What she did wasn't legally actionable under either North Carolina law or the
United States Constitution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:55:28 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

...

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the
original
post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case
because
she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged and
flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.

But but but... she was arrested for violating moviePig law!

[Sloan] Rachmuth, a mother of two, says she was shocked and
confused by the officers' presence. When she demanded the reason
for her arrest, Officer Benjamin Marino chillingly replied,
"Something you did made her uncomfortable, all right?"

It would have been even more chilling if the officer replied, "Something you said wasn't of any societal value according to The moviePig Exception to the 1st Amendment."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/7/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:41:30 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/7/2025 3:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the
original
post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case >>> because
she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged >>> and
flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.


**North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires repeated
electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy,
threaten, or harass" an individual.

--Rachmuth made a single post (no repetition as the statute requires). >>>
--Rachmuth's post was not directed *at* the employee as the statute
requires.
It was *about* the employee but not sent *to* the employee in any way. >>>
Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have >>> reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of >>> cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech >>> and
press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.

Arresting her for cyber-stalking also violated her free speech rights.

Google's AI:

"...cyberstalking is a crime in the United States and many other
countries. It's a form of cyberbullying that involves using technology
to stalk, harass, or intimidate someone."

Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

She wasn't guilty of anything regardless of your grammatical nit-picking. What
she did wasn't legally actionable under either North Carolina law or the United States Constitution.

What "grammatical nitpicking"? Grammar's not involved here.

I have no idea whether she was guilty of cyberstalking or of anything
else. I know only that she was arrested for it, and not for "objecting".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 7, 2025 at 2:12:59 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/7/2025 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:41:30 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>

On 3/7/2025 3:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the >>>> original
post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case >>>> because
she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged
and
flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.


**North Carolina's cyberstalking statute, G.S. 14-196.3, requires repeated
electronic communications made to a person with the intent to "annoy, >>>> threaten, or harass" an individual.

--Rachmuth made a single post (no repetition as the statute requires). >>>>
--Rachmuth's post was not directed *at* the employee as the statute >>>> requires.
It was *about* the employee but not sent *to* the employee in any way. >>>>
Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of >>>> cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech
and
press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.

Arresting her for cyber-stalking also violated her free speech rights.

Google's AI:

"...cyberstalking is a crime in the United States and many other countries. It's a form of cyberbullying that involves using technology
to stalk, harass, or intimidate someone."

Why do you think some generalized AI-generated description of cyber-stalking
is in any way relevant here?

What's at issue is the statute in North Carolina specifically and the 1st Amendment in general.

As I described above, Rachmuth's one post did not meet even one of the several elements of the crime in the statute, and even if it did, the statute itself would then fail because it would criminalize speech that is protected under
the 1st Amendment.

Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

She wasn't guilty of anything regardless of your grammatical nit-picking. >> What
she did wasn't legally actionable under either North Carolina law or the
United States Constitution.

I have no idea whether she was guilty of cyberstalking or of anything
else.

I do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/7/2025 4:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025 at 12:55:28 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

Mar 7, 2025 at 12:04:04 PM PST, moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/6/2025 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

https://rairfoundation.com/jewish-journalist-sloan-rachmuth-arrested-objecting-islamic-terror/

...

Arrested for 'cyberstalking', not "objecting".

Which is much a bullshit charge as objecting, as was explained in the
original
post**, and why the district attorney immediately shit-canned the case
because
she knew the arrest both failed to meet the elements of the crime charged and
flagrantly violated the 1st Amendment.

But but but...

Adam needs a tune-up (...if not a different tune altogether).

she was arrested for violating moviePig law!

[Sloan] Rachmuth, a mother of two, says she was shocked and
confused by the officers' presence. When she demanded the reason
for her arrest, Officer Benjamin Marino chillingly replied,
"Something you did made her uncomfortable, all right?"

It would have been even more chilling if the officer replied, "Something you said wasn't of any societal value according to The moviePig Exception to the 1st Amendment."

You're having a recurring dream. As I appear to be in it, perhaps you
can say what my lines are, and I'll try to help with the interpretation.

(Meanwhile, iirc the officer was immediately reprimanded...)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the event
we happen to be commenting on.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

moviePig

Google's AI:
"...cyberstalking is a crime in the United States and many other countries. It's a form of cyberbullying that involves using technology
to stalk, harass, or intimidate someone."

https://i.etsystatic.com/14909144/r/il/e236a7/1361312420/il_fullxfull.1361312420_taec.jpg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701

Ed Stasiak

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/67/3e/19/673e19cb4548716dfa7a18f40ff3312a.jpg

And people can (and do) object to that as well. In neither case should anyone be arrested. This is the United States and we still have a 1st Amendment. It's
absolutely absurd that this woman was arrested for objecting to what the 'victim' admitted was a political statement.

I wasn't suggesting she get arrested, just that she's a Karen and I would bet dollars to bagels that she wouldn't have a problem with a Jewish guy wearing
a yamulke at the grocery store.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ed Stasiak <[email protected]d> wrote:

BTR1701

Ed Stasiak

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/67/3e/19/673e19cb4548716dfa7a18f40ff3312a.jpg

And people can (and do) object to that as well. In neither case should >>anyone be arrested. This is the United States and we still have a 1st >>Amendment. It's absolutely absurd that this woman was arrested for >>objecting to what the 'victim' admitted was a political statement.

I wasn't suggesting she get arrested, just that she's a Karen and I would bet >dollars to bagels that she wouldn't have a problem with a Jewish guy wearing >a yamulke at the grocery store.

You're getting this very very wrong. A keffiyeh isn't worn for religious purposes. It's an article of clothing worn by men in rural areas to
protect from desert conditions and the sun, that incidentally was being
worn by a female grocery clerk as a political statement.

The yamulke, like the kufi worn by Muslim men, is worn in compliance
with the commandment to keep one's head covered. It's not a political
statement of any kind.

C'mon Ed. You can do better.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have >>> reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech >>> and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was
arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance,
anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting'
(which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection. Now, one may argue
that the *true* motive of the arresting cops was to punish her original objection, but that's a different arena. (And, yes, I do think the
mislabeling here was intentional and inflammatory ...especially as the
simple facts would've sufficed to provoke issue.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 7, 2025 at 10:42:24 PM PST, "Ed Stasiak" <[email protected]d> wrote:

BTR1701

Ed Stasiak


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/67/3e/19/673e19cb4548716dfa7a18f40ff3312a.jpg

And people can (and do) object to that as well. In neither case should
anyone
be arrested. This is the United States and we still have a 1st Amendment. >> It's
absolutely absurd that this woman was arrested for objecting to what the
'victim' admitted was a political statement.

I wasn't suggesting she get arrested, just that she's a Karen and I would bet dollars to bagels that she wouldn't have a problem with a Jewish guy wearing a yamulke at the grocery store.

Yes, people are hypocrites. The pro-Palestinian folks have a lot of hypocrites on their side, too.

It's the behavior of the police here that should be scrutinized and some of them should lose their jobs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have >>>> reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of >>>> cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech >>>> and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the event >> we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance,
anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting' (which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action-- posting about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As evidenced by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment and the 200+ years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district
attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and
inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed
to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in calling it ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him in this thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was 1st Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely inflammatory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of >>>>> cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store. >>>

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the event >>> we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was
arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance,
anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting'
(which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action-- posting about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment and the 200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was arrested for ...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and
inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed
to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in calling it ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him in this thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was 1st Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*, I leave that to attorneys. Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights. >>>>> Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store. >>>>

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was
arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance,
anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting' >>> (which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent >>> -- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action-- posting
about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment and the >> 200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district
attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and
inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed
to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in calling >> it
ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the
woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him in this >> thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was 1st
Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely
inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights. >>>>>> Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was >>>> arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire. >>>> But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance, >>>> anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting' >>>> (which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent >>>> -- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action-- posting
about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment and the >>> 200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district >>> attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was
arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and
inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed
to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in calling
it
ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the >>> woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him in this
thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was 1st
Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely
inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' is a crime.
Was Google wrong? If not, what are you on about?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of >>>>>>>> free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the >>>>>> event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was >>>>> arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire. >>>>> But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance, >>>>> anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting'
(which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action-- >>>> posting
about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As >>>> evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment and the
200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district >>>> attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was >>> arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and
inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed
to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in calling
it
ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the
woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him in this
thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it >>>> was 1st
Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely
inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' is a crime.

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her post did not meet any of elements of the crime and that even if it had, it still wouldn't be criminal because it's protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your continued characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and inflammatory.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected speech, then yes, Google was wrong.

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford (2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of >>>>>>>>> free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the
event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was
arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance, >>>>>> anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting'
(which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action-- >>>>> posting
about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As >>>>> evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment and the
200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district
attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was >>>> arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her actions illegal. >>>
See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and >>>>>> inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed >>>>>> to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in calling
it
ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the
woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him in this
thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it >>>>> was 1st
Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely
inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' is a crime.

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her post did not meet any of elements of the crime and that even if it had, it still wouldn't be criminal because it's protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was arrested for,
i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected speech, then yes, Google
was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus unlikely to
have anything whatsoever to say about her. What Google did say is that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage. >>>

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford >>>>>>>>>> (2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad >>>>>>>>>> interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of >>>>>>>>>> free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the
event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was
arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance,
anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting'
(which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action--
posting
about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment >>>>>> and the
200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district
attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was
arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her actions illegal. >>>>
See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and >>>>>>> inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed >>>>>>> to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in >>>>>> calling
it
ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the
woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him >>>>>> in this
thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it
was 1st
Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely >>>>>> inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' is a crime.

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her post did not meet
any of elements of the crime and that even if it had, it still wouldn't be >> criminal because it's protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your
continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was arrested for, i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected speech, then yes,
Google
was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus unlikely to
have anything whatsoever to say about her. What Google did say is that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage. >>>>

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself. >>>

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was illegal. It
factually and objectively was not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford
(2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad >>>>>>>>>>> interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of
free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the
event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was
arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance,
anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting'
(which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action--
posting
about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment >>>>>>> and the
200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district
attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was
arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and >>>>>>>> inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed >>>>>>>> to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in
calling
it
ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call the
woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him
in this
thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it
was 1st
Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely >>>>>>> inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. >>>

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her post did not meet
any of elements of the crime and that even if it had, it still wouldn't be
criminal because it's protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your
continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was arrested for,
i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected speech, then yes, >>> Google
was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus unlikely to
have anything whatsoever to say about her. What Google did say is that
'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was illegal. It factually and objectively was not.

No, I was *always* referring to the crime. Presumably, this is the
passage you find erroneous:

ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal --
actions in pursuing her objection.

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt. E.g.,:

"In 2008, Marcel Brown was arrested for murder at the age of 18. He
spent a decade in prison before being exonerated."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 9, 2025 at 1:07:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. Shackelford
(2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad >>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional protections of
free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen.
Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty >>>>>>>>>>> at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time and place of the
event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims that a woman was
arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's (political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited instance,
anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for >>>>>>>>> 'objecting'
(which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for >>>>>>>>> subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her subsequent action--
posting
about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st Amendment
and the
200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the district
attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're what she was
arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and >>>>>>>>> inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've sufficed
to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being generous here in
calling
it
ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to >>>>>>>> call the
woman's post an illegal act despite having had it explained to him
in this
thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it
was 1st
Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely >>>>>>>> inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. >>>>

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her post did not >>>> meet
any of elements of the crime and that even if it had, it still wouldn't be
criminal because it's protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your >>>> continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was arrested for, >>> i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected speech, then yes, >>>> Google
was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus unlikely to >>> have anything whatsoever to say about her. What Google did say is that >>> 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was illegal. It
factually and objectively was not.

No, I was *always* referring to the crime. Presumably, this is the
passage you find erroneous:

ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal --
actions in pursuing her objection.

Exactly. Her actions being the post to social media. You called her post illegal, when it factually and objectively was not, something you'd been informed of repeatedly at that point in the thread.

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt.

But making a purportedly statement of fact that her post was illegal was manipulative and inflammatory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 1:07:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and State v. >Shackelford
(2019) have
reinforced the principle that vague and overly-broad >>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations of
cyber-stalking statutes violate constitutional >protections of
free speech
and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate her >free-speech rights.
Which, according to your link, didn't happen. >>>>>>>>>>>> Had "objecting" been her offense, she'd have been guilty >>>>>>>>>>>> at the store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the time

and place of the

event
we happen to be commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims

that a woman was

arrested for merely *objecting* to someone else's >(political) attire.
But, since they weren't, free speech is -- in this

limited instance,

anyway -- happily alive and well. She *wasn't* arrested for >>>>>>>>>> 'objecting'
(which occurred at the store). Rather, she was arrested for >>>>>>>>>> subsequent
-- and illegal -- actions in pursuing her objection. >>>>>>>>>

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her

subsequent action--

posting
about it on social media-- was in no way, shape, or form >illegal. As
evidenced
by the text and elements of the statute itself, the 1st >Amendment
and the
200+
years of jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact

that the district

attorney dropped the case instantly like a hot potato. >>>>>>>>

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, they're

what she was

arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her

actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was intentional and
inflammatory ...especially as the simple facts would've >sufficed
to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being

generous here in

calling
it
ironic rather than hypocritical-- from someone who continues to
call the
woman's post an illegal act despite having had it

explained to him

in this
thread multiple times that it was the exact opposite of >illegal-- it
was 1st
Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting' being purposely
inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. >>>>>

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her post did not
meet
any of elements of the crime and that even if it had, it still >wouldn't be
criminal because it's protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your >>>>> continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and inflammatory. >>>>

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was arrested for, >>>> i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected speech, then yes,
Google
was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus unlikely to >>>> have anything whatsoever to say about her. What Google did say is that >>>> 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold

manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from using it >yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was illegal. It
factually and objectively was not.

No, I was *always* referring to the crime. Presumably, this is the
passage you find erroneous:

ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal --
actions in pursuing her objection.

Exactly. Her actions being the post to social media. You called her post >illegal, when it factually and objectively was not, something you'd been >informed of repeatedly at that point in the thread.

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt.

But making a purportedly statement of fact that her post was illegal was >manipulative and inflammatory.

This means... moviePig is guilty of violating moviePig law! How many
years in prison is the minimum sentence?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/9/2025 4:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 1:07:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and
State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced
the principle that vague and overly-broad
interpretations of cyber-stalking statutes
violate constitutional protections of free
speech and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate
her free-speech rights. Which, according to
your link, didn't happen. Had "objecting" been
her offense, she'd have been guilty at the
store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the
time and place of the event we happen to be
commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims
that a woman was arrested for merely *objecting*
to someone else's (political) attire. But, since
they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited
instance, anyway -- happily alive and well. She
*wasn't* arrested for 'objecting' (which occurred
at the store). Rather, she was arrested for
subsequent -- and illegal -- actions in pursuing
her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her
subsequent action-- posting about it on social
media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced by the text and elements of the statute
itself, the 1st Amendment and the 200+ years of
jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the
district attorney dropped the case instantly like a
hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations,
they're what she was arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her
actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was
intentional and inflammatory ...especially as the
simple facts would've sufficed to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being
generous here in calling it ironic rather than
hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call
the woman's post an illegal act despite having had
it explained to him in this thread multiple times
that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was
1st Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting'
being purposely inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up
above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking'
is a crime.

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her
post did not meet any of elements of the crime and that even
if it had, it still wouldn't be criminal because it's
protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and
inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was
arrested for, i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome
your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected
speech, then yes, Google was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus
unlikely to have anything whatsoever to say about her. What
Google did say is that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google
wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold
manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from
using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was
illegal. It factually and objectively was not.

No, I was *always* referring to the crime. Presumably, this is
the passage you find erroneous:

ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal --
actions in pursuing her objection.

Exactly. Her actions being the post to social media. You called her
post illegal, when it factually and objectively was not, something
you'd been informed of repeatedly at that point in the thread.

No, I said that she was *arrested for* illegal subsequent actions, not
that she committed any.

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt. E.g.,:

"In 2008, Marcel Brown was arrested for murder at the age
of 18. He spent a decade in prison before being exonerated."

But making a purportedly statement of fact that her post was illegal
was manipulative and inflammatory.

No, it *would* have been, had it happened outside your imagination.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 9, 2025 at 2:37:27 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/9/2025 4:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 1:07:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and
State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced
the principle that vague and overly-broad
interpretations of cyber-stalking statutes
violate constitutional protections of free
speech and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate
her free-speech rights. Which, according to
your link, didn't happen. Had "objecting" been
her offense, she'd have been guilty at the
store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the
time and place of the event we happen to be
commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims
that a woman was arrested for merely *objecting*
to someone else's (political) attire. But, since
they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited
instance, anyway -- happily alive and well. She
*wasn't* arrested for 'objecting' (which occurred
at the store). Rather, she was arrested for
subsequent -- and illegal -- actions in pursuing
her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her
subsequent action-- posting about it on social
media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced by the text and elements of the statute
itself, the 1st Amendment and the 200+ years of
jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the
district attorney dropped the case instantly like a
hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations,
they're what she was arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her
actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was
intentional and inflammatory ...especially as the
simple facts would've sufficed to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being
generous here in calling it ironic rather than
hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call
the woman's post an illegal act despite having had
it explained to him in this thread multiple times
that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was
1st Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting'
being purposely inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up
above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking'
is a crime.

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her
post did not meet any of elements of the crime and that even
if it had, it still wouldn't be criminal because it's
protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and
inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was
arrested for, i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome
your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected
speech, then yes, Google was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus
unlikely to have anything whatsoever to say about her. What
Google did say is that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google
wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold
manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from
using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was
illegal. It factually and objectively was not.

No, I was *always* referring to the crime. Presumably, this is
the passage you find erroneous:

ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal --
actions in pursuing her objection.

Exactly. Her actions being the post to social media. You called her
post illegal, when it factually and objectively was not, something
you'd been informed of repeatedly at that point in the thread.

No, I said that she was *arrested for* illegal subsequent actions, not
that she committed any.

That's calling her actions illegal. They were not. You were being manipulative and inflammatory.

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt. E.g.,:

But if you characterize a person's actions as illegal when they're not, you're being manipulative and inflammatory.

But making a purported statement of fact that her post was illegal
was manipulative and inflammatory.

No, it *would* have been, had it happened outside your imagination.

It was because it happened in reality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/9/2025 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 2:37:27 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/9/2025 4:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 1:07:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and
State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced
the principle that vague and overly-broad
interpretations of cyber-stalking statutes
violate constitutional protections of free
speech and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate
her free-speech rights. Which, according to
your link, didn't happen. Had "objecting" been
her offense, she'd have been guilty at the
store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the
time and place of the event we happen to be
commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims
that a woman was arrested for merely *objecting*
to someone else's (political) attire. But, since
they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited
instance, anyway -- happily alive and well. She
*wasn't* arrested for 'objecting' (which occurred
at the store). Rather, she was arrested for
subsequent -- and illegal -- actions in pursuing
her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her
subsequent action-- posting about it on social
media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced by the text and elements of the statute
itself, the 1st Amendment and the 200+ years of
jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the
district attorney dropped the case instantly like a
hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations,
they're what she was arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her
actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was
intentional and inflammatory ...especially as the
simple facts would've sufficed to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being
generous here in calling it ironic rather than
hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call
the woman's post an illegal act despite having had
it explained to him in this thread multiple times
that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was
1st Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting'
being purposely inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up
above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking'
is a crime.

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her
post did not meet any of elements of the crime and that even
if it had, it still wouldn't be criminal because it's
protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and
inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was
arrested for, i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome
your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected
speech, then yes, Google was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus
unlikely to have anything whatsoever to say about her. What
Google did say is that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google
wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold
manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from
using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was
illegal. It factually and objectively was not.

No, I was *always* referring to the crime. Presumably, this is
the passage you find erroneous:

ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal --
actions in pursuing her objection.

Exactly. Her actions being the post to social media. You called her
post illegal, when it factually and objectively was not, something
you'd been informed of repeatedly at that point in the thread.

No, I said that she was *arrested for* illegal subsequent actions, not
that she committed any.

That's calling her actions illegal. They were not. You were being manipulative
and inflammatory.

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt. E.g.,:

But if you characterize a person's actions as illegal when they're not, you're
being manipulative and inflammatory.

But making a purported statement of fact that her post was illegal
was manipulative and inflammatory.

No, it *would* have been, had it happened outside your imagination.

It was because it happened in reality.

Do stick to those guns. You have a another foot...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 10, 2025 at 9:17:06 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/9/2025 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 2:37:27 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/9/2025 4:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 1:07:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and
State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the principle that vague and overly-broad
interpretations of cyber-stalking statutes
violate constitutional protections of free
speech and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate
her free-speech rights. Which, according to
your link, didn't happen. Had "objecting" been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her offense, she'd have been guilty at the
store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the
time and place of the event we happen to be
commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims
that a woman was arrested for merely *objecting*
to someone else's (political) attire. But, since
they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited
instance, anyway -- happily alive and well. She
*wasn't* arrested for 'objecting' (which occurred >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the store). Rather, she was arrested for
subsequent -- and illegal -- actions in pursuing
her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her
subsequent action-- posting about it on social
media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As
evidenced by the text and elements of the statute
itself, the 1st Amendment and the 200+ years of
jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>> district attorney dropped the case instantly like a >>>>>>>>>>>> hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations,
they're what she was arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her
actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was
intentional and inflammatory ...especially as the >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple facts would've sufficed to provoke issue.)

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being
generous here in calling it ironic rather than
hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call
the woman's post an illegal act despite having had
it explained to him in this thread multiple times
that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was
1st Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting'
being purposely inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up
above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' >>>>>>>>> is a crime.

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her
post did not meet any of elements of the crime and that even >>>>>>>> if it had, it still wouldn't be criminal because it's
protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your continued
characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and
inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was
arrested for, i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome
your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected
speech, then yes, Google was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus
unlikely to have anything whatsoever to say about her. What
Google did say is that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google >>>>>>> wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold
manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from
using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was
illegal. It factually and objectively was not.

No, I was *always* referring to the crime. Presumably, this is
the passage you find erroneous:

ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal --
actions in pursuing her objection.

Exactly. Her actions being the post to social media. You called her >>>> post illegal, when it factually and objectively was not, something
you'd been informed of repeatedly at that point in the thread.

No, I said that she was *arrested for* illegal subsequent actions, not
that she committed any.

That's calling her actions illegal. They were not. You were being
manipulative
and inflammatory.

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt. E.g.,:

But if you characterize a person's actions as illegal when they're not,
you're
being manipulative and inflammatory.

But making a purported statement of fact that her post was illegal
was manipulative and inflammatory.

No, it *would* have been, had it happened outside your imagination.

It was because it happened in reality.

Do stick to those guns. You have a another foot...

Behold the irony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/10/2025 1:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 10, 2025 at 9:17:06 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/9/2025 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 2:37:27 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>

On 3/9/2025 4:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 1:07:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:

On 3/9/2025 2:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 9, 2025 at 10:04:01 AM PDT, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 2:50:39 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 12:42:22 PM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025 at 9:52:14 AM PST, "moviePig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 3/8/2025 1:27 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

moviePig

BTR1701

Furthermore, State v. Bishop (2016) and
State v. Shackelford (2019) have reinforced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the principle that vague and overly-broad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations of cyber-stalking statutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violate constitutional protections of free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech and press freedom.

Arresting her for "objecting" would violate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her free-speech rights. Which, according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your link, didn't happen. Had "objecting" been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her offense, she'd have been guilty at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store.

Our free speech rights are not limited to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and place of the event we happen to be
commenting on.

Let me clear this up, summarily I hope:

The subject-line, as well as the article, claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a woman was arrested for merely *objecting* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone else's (political) attire. But, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they weren't, free speech is -- in this limited >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, anyway -- happily alive and well. She >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *wasn't* arrested for 'objecting' (which occurred >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the store). Rather, she was arrested for
subsequent -- and illegal -- actions in pursuing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> her objection.

Well, I hate to dash your summary hopes, but her >>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequent action-- posting about it on social
media-- was in no way, shape, or form illegal. As >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidenced by the text and elements of the statute >>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, the 1st Amendment and the 200+ years of
jurisprudence illuminating it, and the fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> district attorney dropped the case instantly like a >>>>>>>>>>>>> hot potato.

Whether or not she was innocent of the allegations, >>>>>>>>>>>> they're what she was arrested for

Being arrested for them by bad cops does not make her >>>>>>>>>>> actions illegal.

See? I can play the word-nitpick game, too.

...and not for "objecting".

(And, yes, I do think the mislabeling here was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional and inflammatory ...especially as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple facts would've sufficed to provoke issue.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>

A rather ironic statement to make-- and I'm being >>>>>>>>>>>>> generous here in calling it ironic rather than
hypocritical-- from someone who continues to call >>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman's post an illegal act despite having had >>>>>>>>>>>>> it explained to him in this thread multiple times >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it was the exact opposite of illegal-- it was >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st Amendment-protected speech.

Yet you're all het up over the word 'objecting'
being purposely inflammatory.

*I* don't call the woman's post *anything*

Yet you literally called it illegal right there up
above.

I literally cited Google, which said that 'cyberstalking' >>>>>>>>>> is a crime.

And since it's been explained to you (repeatedly) that her >>>>>>>>> post did not meet any of elements of the crime and that even >>>>>>>>> if it had, it still wouldn't be criminal because it's
protected speech under the 1st Amendment, your continued >>>>>>>>> characterization of it as illegal is manipulative and
inflammatory.

Then you maintain that she's innocent of the crime she was >>>>>>>> arrested for, i.e., 'cyberstalking'. No doubt she'd welcome >>>>>>>> your amicus curiae.

Was Google wrong?

If it said this woman's post was criminal unprotected
speech, then yes, Google was wrong.

Google doesn't know "this woman" from your cat, and is thus >>>>>>>> unlikely to have anything whatsoever to say about her. What >>>>>>>> Google did say is that 'cyberstalking' is a crime. Was Google >>>>>>>> wrong?

Meanwhile, yes, I often feel compelled to scold
manipulative verbiage.

But you're apparently not compelled to refrain from
using it yourself.

What word(s) did I change to invent drama?

You added the word illegal.

Are crimes no longer illegal now?

You weren't referring to the crime. You said her post was
illegal. It factually and objectively was not.

No, I was *always* referring to the crime. Presumably, this is >>>>>> the passage you find erroneous:

ME: Rather, she was arrested for subsequent -- and illegal --
actions in pursuing her objection.

Exactly. Her actions being the post to social media. You called her >>>>> post illegal, when it factually and objectively was not, something >>>>> you'd been informed of repeatedly at that point in the thread.

No, I said that she was *arrested for* illegal subsequent actions, not >>>> that she committed any.

That's calling her actions illegal. They were not. You were being
manipulative
and inflammatory.

Note that being "arrested for" something doesn't equal guilt. E.g.,: >>>

But if you characterize a person's actions as illegal when they're not, >>> you're
being manipulative and inflammatory.

But making a purported statement of fact that her post was illegal >>>>> was manipulative and inflammatory.

No, it *would* have been, had it happened outside your imagination.

It was because it happened in reality.

Do stick to those guns. You have another foot...

Behold the irony.

Surely you mean "manipulative and inflammatory" irony...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)