California Prosecuting Man for Insulting Posts on Islamic Center's Facebook Page

In September 2016, Mark Feigin posted five insulting comments on the Islamic Center of Southern California's Facebook page (before he was finally blocked by the ICSC from commenting):

"THE TERROR HIKE ... SOUNDS LIKE FUN" (written in response to the Center's "Sunset Hike" announcement).
"THE MORE Muslims WE ALLOW INTO AMERICA THE MORE TERROR WE WILL SEE."
"PRACTICING ISLAM CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION."
"Islam is dangerous - fact: the more Muslim savages we allow into america - the more terror we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable."
"Filthy Muslim shit has no place in western civilization."
California is now prosecuting him for posting these comments, on the theory that they violate Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b):

Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device ... to another person is ... guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.

The posts, the California AG's office argues, were "were made with the specific intent to annoy and harass the members of the ICSC," because Feigin "was not trying to engage in any kind of political discussion but instead trying to vex members of the ICSC with his thoughts about their religion." The posts are criminal because they constitute "repeated harassment from those who wish to mock and disparage their religion," and, "[r]ather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate," are "cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it."


https://reason.com/volokh/2017/12/29/calif-prosecuting-man-for-insulting-post


I gigantic waste of money, but par for the course. The people spending it, didn't actually earn it.

what happened to freedom of speech ?

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:what happened to freedom of speech ?

California is a funny place. They still have freedom of speech there, but the useless government there will force some people to pay lawyers thousands of dollars to prove it.

That's why it doesn't matter if you are innocent or not. Government abusing it's power can bankrupt you while you defend yourself.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It violates the California penal code so tough cookies for him.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
what happened to freedom of speech ?

You're an idiot...

If he only wanted to express his freedom of speech, he would have done so on his own Facebook page..

Maddog wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
what happened to freedom of speech ?

California is a funny place. They still have freedom of speech there, but the useless government there will force some people to pay lawyers thousands of dollars to prove it.

That's why it doesn't matter if you are innocent or not. Government abusing it's power can bankrupt you while you defend yourself.

Somebody has to maintain civilised standards over there...

Otherwise the whole place would go to the ("libertarian") dogs..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
California is a funny place. They still have freedom of speech there, but the useless government there will force some people to pay lawyers thousands of dollars to prove it.

That's why it doesn't matter if you are innocent or not. Government abusing it's power can bankrupt you while you defend yourself.

Somebody has to maintain civilised standards over there...

Otherwise the whole place would go to the ("libertarian") dogs..

Yes, someone has to harass and bankrupt citizens for saying mean things.

Cass wrote:Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It violates the California penal code so tough cookies for him.

If you suffer consequences for expressing your opinion, you don't have freedom of speech. He will win this if he wants to spend enough money fighting these bastards. More than likely he will cave because the cheaper way out is to pay the fine and move on. The folks that prosecute people unfairly know that people just want these things to go away.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
what happened to freedom of speech ?

You're an idiot...

If he only wanted to express his freedom of speech, he would have done so on his own Facebook page..

He was expressing it on Facebook. They could have blocked him like anyone does to people that say shit they don't want hear on their page. Haven't you had to block or delete someone on Facebook?

More from the article.............


Of course, there's nothing in the government's logic that limits it to comments posted on the Islamic Center's page, or for that matter on the Catholic Church's page or the Westboro Baptist Church's page or the Church of Scientology's page. If the government is right, and the statute applies to posts on organizations' pages, then it would apply to any repeated harshly critical posts

on an NRA page "intended to annoy" NRA employees,

on a pro-Trump page "intended to annoy" its operators,

or on any other ideological organization's page.

of course

what else can be expected from the liberal socialists in California

".. the liberal socialists in California."  says Smelly'...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

".. the liberal socialists in California."  says Smelly'...

Use whatever term you like. This wouldn't happen to someone saying mean things about some weird, fringe christian group. Not in Cali.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
what happened to freedom of speech ?

You're an idiot...

If he only wanted to express his freedom of speech, he would have done so on his own Facebook page..

and You're rude .

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

".. the liberal socialists in California."  says Smelly'...

Use whatever term you like. This wouldn't happen to someone saying mean things about some weird, fringe christian group.  Not in Cali.  

Agree

Cass wrote:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It violates the California penal code so tough cookies for him.

Look, Cass !!!

Nasty little VoD -- or one of her equally-rabid chums -- gave you a 'red'.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Cass wrote:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It violates the California penal code so tough cookies for him.

Look,  Cass  !!!

Nasty little VoD --  or one of her equally-rabid chums --  gave you a 'red'.

I take it as a compliment. Looks like you got one too. Twinsies!!!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Cass wrote:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It violates the California penal code so tough cookies for him.

Look,  Cass  !!!

Nasty little VoD --  or one of her equally-rabid chums --  gave you a 'red'.

I came on here to post some of my opinions - today is a very sad for day for me I wouldn't expect you to understand but I just want to say that I find it rather sad that you are once again going about the forum and selecting my comments and making really rude and spiteful comments about me .

I hope one day you will find peace within your soul - I have seen a nice side to you and I have to say it was a pleasure .

Take care and bless you .

Maddog wrote:More from the article.............


Of course, there's nothing in the government's logic that limits it to comments posted on the Islamic Center's page, or for that matter on the Catholic Church's page or the Westboro Baptist Church's page or the Church of Scientology's page. If the government is right, and the statute applies to posts on organizations' pages, then it would apply to any repeated harshly critical posts

on an NRA page "intended to annoy" NRA employees,

on a pro-Trump page "intended to annoy" its operators,

or on any other ideological organization's page.

Yup and I would support those organizations, even though I don’t agree with their ethos, in prosecuting people who did that to them as they are breaking the law. It really is that simple.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Look,  Cass  !!!

Nasty little VoD --  or one of her equally-rabid chums --  gave you a 'red'.

I came on here to post some of my opinions - today is a very sad for day for me I wouldn't expect you to understand but I just want to say that  I find it rather sad that you are once again going about the forum and selecting my comments and making really rude and spiteful comments about me .

I hope one day you will find peace within your soul - I have seen a nice side to you and I have to say it was a pleasure .

Take care and bless you .

Wait!! People are saying mean things on the internet? Surely there is a law that can be used to prosecute them..

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:More from the article.............


Of course, there's nothing in the government's logic that limits it to comments posted on the Islamic Center's page, or for that matter on the Catholic Church's page or the Westboro Baptist Church's page or the Church of Scientology's page. If the government is right, and the statute applies to posts on organizations' pages, then it would apply to any repeated harshly critical posts

on an NRA page "intended to annoy" NRA employees,

on a pro-Trump page "intended to annoy" its operators,

or on any other ideological organization's page.

Yup and I would support those organizations, even though I don’t agree with their ethos, in prosecuting people who did that to them as they are breaking the law. It really is that simple.

Do what? Say mean things? Take a look around this dorum.and what is said about people and get back to me.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Yup and I would support those organizations, even though I don’t agree with their ethos, in prosecuting people who did that to them as they are breaking the law. It really is that simple.

Do what? Say mean things? Take a look around this dorum.and what is said about people and get back to me.  

And if they get prosecuted then so be it. They’re adults and can choose how they act just like this guy did. That’s the risk you take with social media.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do what? Say mean things? Take a look around this dorum.and what is said about people and get back to me.  

And if they get prosecuted then so be it. They’re adults and can choose how they act just like this guy did. That’s the risk you take with social media.

So you want people prosecuted for saying mean things?

Can Wolfie expect a "knock" on his door in the near future?

nicko wrote:Can Wolfie expect a "knock" on his door in the near future?

Probably not.

I bet this forum is hosted in Texas. Many of the forums around the world are, because you won't run afoul of speech laws as much.

Maddog wrote:

nicko wrote:Can Wolfie expect a "knock" on his door in the near future?

Probably not.

I bet this forum is hosted in Texas. Many of the forums around the world are, because you won't run afoul of speech laws as much.

No it’s not. I think it was mentioned ages ago somewhere in Europe?

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

And if they get prosecuted then so be it. They’re adults and can choose how they act just like this guy did. That’s the risk you take with social media.

So you want people prosecuted for saying mean things?

Don’t put words in my mouth Aggie thanks very much.

It’s not about them saying certain words, it’s about them breaking a law where they live. People should educate themselves on local laws. If they break it and get prosecuted then that’s on themselves. If you don’t like the law, get yourself elected and change it.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So you want people prosecuted for saying mean things?

Don’t put words in my mouth Aggie thanks very much.

It’s not about them saying certain words, it’s about them breaking a law where they live. People should educate themselves on local laws. If they break it and get prosecuted then that’s on themselves. If you don’t like the law, get yourself elected and change it.

Local laws don't trump the constitution. No one broke any laws here. What is happening is someone is being railroaded and dared to take on the governmnet.

Unfortunately, justice is not always blind in this country. That's what keeps groups like the ACLU so busy.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So you want people prosecuted for saying mean things?

Don’t put words in my mouth Aggie thanks very much.

It’s not about them saying certain words, it’s about them breaking a law where they live. People should educate themselves on local laws. If they break it and get prosecuted then that’s on themselves. If you don’t like the law, get yourself elected and change it.

Local laws don't trump the constitution. No one broke any laws here. What is happening is someone is being railroaded and dared to take on the governmnet.

Unfortunately, justice is not always blind in this country. That's what keeps groups like the ACLU so busy.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Probably not.

I bet this forum is hosted in Texas. Many of the forums around the world are, because you won't run afoul of speech laws as much.

No it’s not. I think it was mentioned ages ago somewhere in Europe?

I might be wrong, but I would make a small wager that I'm not.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

No it’s not. I think it was mentioned ages ago somewhere in Europe?

I might be wrong, but I would make a small wager that I'm not.  

Ben’s in Texas but not forumotion.

Winner buys loser a big ole piece of brisket. Deal?

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Don’t put words in my mouth Aggie thanks very much.

It’s not about them saying certain words, it’s about them breaking a law where they live. People should educate themselves on local laws. If they break it and get prosecuted then that’s on themselves. If you don’t like the law, get yourself elected and change it.

Local laws don't trump the constitution. No one broke any laws here. What is happening is someone is being railroaded and dared to take on the governmnet.

Unfortunately, justice is not always blind in this country.  That's what keeps groups like the ACLU so busy.  

I disagree.

So how do you feel about Germany’s hate speech laws?

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Local laws don't trump the constitution. No one broke any laws here. What is happening is someone is being railroaded and dared to take on the governmnet.

Unfortunately, justice is not always blind in this country.  That's what keeps groups like the ACLU so busy.  

I disagree.

So how do you feel about Germany’s hate speech laws?

You disagree that the ACLU stays busy?

I hate hate speech and all hate speech laws. I am very consistent in my regards to liberty. I'm a fan.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I might be wrong, but I would make a small wager that I'm not.  

Ben’s in Texas but not forumotion.

Winner buys loser a big ole piece of brisket. Deal?

I know where Ben is.  Best I can tell forumotion is out of Paris.  But I thought the site was hosted in the US to avoid silly euroweenie  laws.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

I disagree.

So how do you feel about Germany’s hate speech laws?

You disagree that the ACLU stays busy?  

I hate hate speech and all hate speech laws.  I am very consistent in my regards to liberty.  I'm a fan.  

No I disagree about breaking laws. He did. But let’s see if it goes to the SC shall we?

The ACLU can be both a force for good and downright silliness, but overall I’m glad that they exist. I think it’s sad and a statement on how hateful society has become that they are kept so busy.

Fair point. You are consistent. We can at least agree on that. Hook Em Horns \.../

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Ben’s in Texas but not forumotion.

Winner buys loser a big ole piece of brisket. Deal?

I know where Ben is.  Best I can tell forumotion is out of Paris.  But I thought the site was hosted in the US to avoid silly euroweenie  laws.

We will have to wait for his ruling.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You disagree that the ACLU stays busy?  

I hate hate speech and all hate speech laws.  I am very consistent in my regards to liberty.  I'm a fan.  

No I disagree about breaking laws. He did. But let’s see if it goes to the SC shall we?

The ACLU can be both a force for good and downright silliness, but overall I’m glad that they exist. I think it’s sad and a statement on how hateful society has become that they are kept so busy.

Fair point. You are consistent. We can at least agree on that. Hook Em Horns \.../

The horns suck and the ACLU is there primarily to protect people like this poor guy being railroaded by the government. They are champions of free speech.

It is no longer "free speech" when somebody moves beyond simply leaving a couple of comments on a specific topic, and then moves on to become a consistent and serial harasser...

Which he did in this case..

By persisting with his abusive harassment, he was beginning to to infringe on his target's own freedoms and civil rights.

Just like the Westbro "Baptists" do when they invade and picket funerals and military ceremonies..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It is no longer "free speech" when somebody moves beyond simply leaving a couple of comments on a specific topic, and then moves on to become a consistent and serial harasser...

Which he did in this case..

By persisting with his abusive harassment, he was beginning to to infringe on his target's own freedoms and civil rights.

Just like the Westbro "Baptists" do when they invade and picket funerals and military ceremonies..

Westboro is still allowed on public property with their signs of hate. They are a nasty bunch but in a free country you have to tolerate nasty people.

It's just like flag burning. Plenty of laws that are still on the books saying it's illegal. However the Supreme Court settled the matter years ago. It's protected free speech.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It is no longer "free speech" when somebody moves beyond simply leaving a couple of comments on a specific topic, and then moves on to become a consistent and serial harasser...

Which he did in this case..

By persisting with his abusive harassment, he was beginning to to infringe on his target's own freedoms and civil rights.

Just like the Westbro "Baptists" do when they invade and picket funerals and military ceremonies..

It's pretty much the same thing when people continually harass posters on forums...doncha think?

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It is no longer "free speech" when somebody moves beyond simply leaving a couple of comments on a specific topic, and then moves on to become a consistent and serial harasser...

Which he did in this case..

By persisting with his abusive harassment, he was beginning to to infringe on his target's own freedoms and civil rights.

Just like the Westbro "Baptists" do when they invade and picket funerals and military ceremonies..

It's pretty much the same thing when people continually harass posters on forums...doncha think?

Of course it is. Now Ben has the right to ban abusive posters. However, no one should be prosecuted for being a dick on a forum.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It is no longer "free speech" when somebody moves beyond simply leaving a couple of comments on a specific topic, and then moves on to become a consistent and serial harasser...

Which he did in this case..

By persisting with his abusive harassment, he was beginning to to infringe on his target's own freedoms and civil rights.

Just like the Westbro "Baptists" do when they invade and picket funerals and military ceremonies..

I think that gets to the heart of the matter. The First Amendment protects information, but it doesn't protect malicious misuse of a communication device. If a jury feels that it was done with malice, I don't think the First Amendment will apply.

But it's a close call.

This is malicious hate speech, and it's protected in the US.

Muslims do the same here to returning Soldiers, and they get away with it!

nicko wrote:Muslims do the same here to returning Soldiers,   and they get away with it!

Really? I’ve never seen that. Any links to that story Nicko?

Maddog wrote:





This is malicious hate speech, and it's protected in the US.

Thank goodness so many counter protesters show up and drown them out. Or Dave Grohl shows up and rick-rolls them.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:





This is malicious hate speech, and it's protected in the US.

Thank goodness so many counter protesters show up and drown them out. Or Dave Grohl shows up and rick-rolls them.

I have been one of those protesters. The cowards didn't show. I still support their right to be worthless cowards.

Yes, I'm not totally in favor of hate crime prosecutions, either.  I believe you counter ideas with other ideas. But sometimes the competition moves over and becomes less about ideas, and more about the animosity. On here, look at how many discussions become less dialogue, and more insults. It's a human tendency.

The law is more aimed at the instrumentality, than at the message.  At some point, 'in-your-face' communication crosses over into, less messaging, more harassment. I guess the state is testing the limits of that with this case.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It is no longer "free speech" when somebody moves beyond simply leaving a couple of comments on a specific topic, and then moves on to become a consistent and serial harasser...

Which he did in this case..

By persisting with his abusive harassment, he was beginning to to infringe on his target's own freedoms and civil rights.

Just like the Westbro "Baptists" do when they invade and picket funerals and military ceremonies..

It's pretty much the same thing when people continually harass posters on forums...doncha think?

Yep,  I totally agree there,  edds  !!!

Which is why I only abuse those nasty people on here once or twice, before moving onto another thread, or signing off for the day..    

Nice to see you admit you abuse people on here wolfie - I hope admin are taking note of wolfies confession .