California prosecutes man for posting anti muslim messages on facebook

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's the State of California's response to this guy's motion to dismiss the charges:

https://reason.com/assets/db/15145257062289.pdf

It'd be interesting to see how the court comes down on the second argument - or if they mention it at all.

I could see a first amendment challenge to these charges getting them dismissed - but whether there is an expectation and interest for privacy on Facebook is a more interesting legal question to me.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things PUBLICLY on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

 

[Hal-9000]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

 

[Faun]

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

The difference, of course, being folks come here to debate or even argue politics, whereas he attacked a Facebook account of a mosque.

 

[Faun]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

It is when you call that mosque and threaten to kill the person answering the phone.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

You're focusing on the wrong words.

"Harassment" is the crime we're discussing.

Not disliking mosques, or mocking the President.

 

[Hal-9000]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

It is when you call that mosque and threaten to kill the person answering the phone.

If that happened, and was confirmed, the person would be arrested immediately. If he was not arrested, then it's fake. Why is the state involved and not the local police?

 

[Hal-9000]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

You're focusing on the wrong words.

"Harassment" is the crime we're discussing.

Not disliking mosques, or mocking the President.

Was the man arrested for harassment? if not perhaps he is the one being harassed

 

[theDoctorisIn]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

It is when you call that mosque and threaten to kill the person answering the phone.

If that happened, and was confirmed, the person would be arrested immediately. If he was not arrested, then it's fake. Why is the state involved and not the local police?

The State is the party who prosecutes violations of state law.

"Local police" enforce state law, they don't prosecute it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

You're focusing on the wrong words.

"Harassment" is the crime we're discussing.

Not disliking mosques, or mocking the President.

Was the man arrested for harassment? if not perhaps he is the one being harassed

Yes, that is what he was arrested for, and that's what he's being charged with. Specifically, he's being charged under section 653m of the California Penal Code, which can be found here.

 

[Hal-9000]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

You're focusing on the wrong words.

"Harassment" is the crime we're discussing.

Not disliking mosques, or mocking the President.

Was the man arrested for harassment? if not perhaps he is the one being harassed

Yes, that is what he was arrested for, and that's what he's being charged with.

Well it's not like muslims ever harass anyone right

 

[Faun]

^^ An "expectation to privacy" when the options you can select are "private or public" accounts? Bearing in mind that one of the options is PUBLIC discussions and sharing? C'mon Mr. Moderator, I know you are more intelligent than that!

Membership on Facebook is also voluntary. Yet it's a forum for the public to use. Get ready. If I were you I'd be working on backing the defense in this case.

Of course membership on facebook is voluntary. But the explicit purpose of facebook isn't to argue about politics.

Having a phone is voluntary too - but that doesn't make telephone harassment a protected right.

You've made no legal distinction between this website and Facebook for the purposes of selective prosecution for slurs against religious people of any faith. Like I said, be careful. You know how precedent works in law. People debate things on Facebook all the time, politics included. Politics especially. Be careful what you wish for.

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

It is when you call that mosque and threaten to kill the person answering the phone.

If that happened, and was confirmed, the person would be arrested immediately. If he was not arrested, then it's fake. Why is the state involved and not the local police?

He was arrested when the police determined it was him.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

All they had to do was block him from their Facebook page or contact Facebook and report him for harassment. This is hardly a law enforcement issue.

 

[Faun]

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.

All they had to do was block him from their Facebook page or contact Facebook and report him for harassment. This is hardly a law enforcement issue.

There's more to this story than than the limited details filtered through inforwars...

California man who threatened to kill had a stockpile of weapons and a ‘hatred for Muslims’

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There's more to this story than than the limited details filtered through inforwars...

California man who threatened to kill had a stockpile of weapons and a ‘hatred for Muslims’

I kind of figured there was more going on than what nut job Jones was letting on.

 

[Faun]

There's more to this story than than the limited details filtered through inforwars...

California man who threatened to kill had a stockpile of weapons and a ‘hatred for Muslims’

I kind of figured there was more going on than what nut job Jones was letting on.

There always is.

In all fairness to Mark Feigin, even more developments have emerged since then, leading to doubt he made the threatening calls...

Hate crime whodunit: Do police have the wrong man? - CNN

... looks like the courts will have to sort this one out.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're still not getting it.

This man isn't be prosecuted for "slurs against religious people".

He's being prosecuted for repeatedly harassing a specific mosque on facebook.

Is not liking specific mosques a crime?

Doesn't Saturday Night Live repeatedly mock the President

You're focusing on the wrong words.

"Harassment" is the crime we're discussing.

Not disliking mosques, or mocking the President.

Was the man arrested for harassment? if not perhaps he is the one being harassed

Yes, that is what he was arrested for, and that's what he's being charged with.

Well it's not like muslims ever harass anyone right

Trying to change the subject already?

I'll accept that as a concession.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Democrat Bigots say that they hate Christians every day.
CA prosecutors are going to be very busy if they are going to be fair.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Please do not post graphic content on the open board.