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

First topic message reminder :


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.

Okay I am going to change what is said and see if people still agree it was okay to prosecute and whether they would call for the same here?


"THE MORE Republicans WE have in AMERICA THE MORE OppressionWE WILL SEE."
"PRACTICING Republicanism CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION."
"Republicanism is dangerous - fact: the more Republican savages we have in america - the more oppression we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable."
"Filthy Republican shit has no place in western civilization."

Original Quill wrote: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.

What's a hate crime??

Didge wrote:Okay I am going to change what is said and see if people still agree it was okay to prosecute and whether they would call for the same here?


"THE MORE Republicans WE have in AMERICA THE MORE OppressionWE WILL SEE."
"PRACTICING Republicanism CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION."
"Republicanism is dangerous - fact: the more Republican savages we have in america - the more oppression we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable."
"Filthy Republican shit has no place in western civilization."

Now you sound like Quill.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:Okay I am going to change what is said and see if people still agree it was okay to prosecute and whether they would call for the same here?


"THE MORE Republicans WE have in AMERICA THE MORE OppressionWE WILL SEE."
"PRACTICING Republicanism CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION."
"Republicanism is dangerous - fact: the more Republican savages we have in america - the more oppression we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable."
"Filthy Republican shit has no place in western civilization."

Now you sound like Quill.  

How so?

When placed in this context, none of those supporting prosecution in regards to view against Muslims, would  be saying the same the same if this was about Republicans

Hence the hypocrisy

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote: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.

What's a hate crime??

The US has a unique challenge in that we have the First Amendment, freedom of speech clause.  So we can't do what y'all (and Germany) do, just outlaw subjects.

As close as we can come is, if someone commits a crime--say, an assault--and while doing it, shouts how he hates gays (or blacks, or whites, etc.), the sentence can receive an enhancement based upon proof of malice specifically going to race, sex and other protected classifications.

As didge knows, I've been critical of your legal system because you lack the sort of ironclad safeguard of free speech that we have in our First Amendment.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Now you sound like Quill.  

How so?

When placed in this context, none of those supporting prosecution in regards to view against Muslims, would  be saying the same the same if this was about Republicans

Hence the hypocrisy

I don't mean you personally, but those comments are very much like something I have heard on here.

And you are correct, there is very little shortage of hypocrisy around here. It's not so much the level of hate in the comments, but the target. Some targets are OK, while other are not.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

What's a hate crime??

The US has a unique challenge in that we have the First Amendment, freedom of speech clause.  So we can't do what y'all (and Germany) do, just outlaw subjects.

As close as we can come is, if someone commits a crime--say, an assault--and while doing it, shouts how he hates gays (or blacks, or whites, etc.), the sentence can receive an enhancement based upon proof of malice specifically going to race, sex and other protected classifications.

As didge knows, I've been critical of your legal system because you lack the sort of ironclad safeguard of free speech that we have in our First Amendment.

This is true

The UK criminal justice system is most aptly named, it delivers justice to criminals

I assume your definition of hate crime is as flexible as the rest of your views and doesn't cover every type of hate crime, but only the ones you take an interest in??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The US has a unique challenge in that we have the First Amendment, freedom of speech clause.  So we can't do what y'all (and Germany) do, just outlaw subjects.

As close as we can come is, if someone commits a crime--say, an assault--and while doing it, shouts how he hates gays (or blacks, or whites, etc.), the sentence can receive an enhancement based upon proof of malice specifically going to race, sex and other protected classifications.

As didge knows, I've been critical of your legal system because you lack the sort of ironclad safeguard of free speech that we have in our First Amendment.

This is true

The UK criminal justice system is most aptly named, it delivers justice to criminals

I assume your definition of  hate crime is as flexible as the  rest of your views and doesn't cover every type of hate crime, but only the ones you take an interest in??

I don't know, Russ.  I don't practice criminal law, although I once did in Arizona.  It seems to me that the law would have to tie down two things: what are the protected classifications; and what assurances are there that it is bilateral.  There has to be some context established.  I mean, you can't just say it's a gender-based hate crime if someone said fuck you!  Or call it religious based if someone says, Jesus Christ, you're stupid!

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

How so?

When placed in this context, none of those supporting prosecution in regards to view against Muslims, would  be saying the same the same if this was about Republicans

Hence the hypocrisy

I don't mean you personally, but those comments are very much like something I have heard on here.

And you are correct, there is very little shortage of hypocrisy around here. It's not so much the level of hate in the comments, but the target. Some targets are OK, while other are not.  

Hence my point on how those claiming there should be criminal action, would not call for the same, if this was views against Republicans.

I agree with your last point