Freedom of speech only counts if it’s against Christianity.
You have no rights in California if you aren’t an illegal alien, Muslim, minority, or gay.
The applicable CA law here was set up to combat harassing phone calls. It will be interesting to see if a judge expands that law to include Facebook.
I think the 'Rat Party does that all the time to me.
Posting things someone doesn’t like on their Facebook page may be against Facebook’s terms of service, but I have real trouble seeing how it can be in any way illegal.
The headline writer misspelled 'persecutes'.
If you're white and Christian, he plans to charge you with something. Anything.
that’s a stalker law that has been perverted to be a thought crime law.
California has a law against everything. But they enforce them selectively.
Ping.
heres the horrible things he wrote:
THE TERROR HIKE … SOUNDS LIKE FUN” (In reference to the Center’s advertised “Sunset Hike”)
“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.”
I pretty much agree with him
He should set up with a soap box and bullhorn across the street from the Islamic center and be protected by the first amendment.
If someone would like to take this up to the SC, I am guessing they will win.
Notice how they say “California” has leveled misdemeanor charges. They don’t say how the attorney general is using the office as a personal battering ram against American citizens.
The problem here is that the corrupt democrat AG is acting as both judge and jury against the poster.
The San Andreas earthquake can’t come soon enough. Spit.
I see a whole bunch of atheists getting charged /not
Seriously?! As long as he put his name to it, openly stated his opinion, this seems clearly within the scope of the 1st Amendment. If he did it anonymously, I’d find that harder to defend. (Tired of people to hiding behind anonymity to spout things they don’t want to be associated with or held accountable for—if you wouldn’t say it with your name on it, probably shouldn’t say it.)
Seriously?! As long as he put his name to it, openly stated his opinion, this seems clearly within the scope of the 1st Amendment. If he did it anonymously, I’d find that harder to defend. (Tired of people to hiding behind anonymity to spout things they don’t want to be associated with or held accountable for—if you wouldn’t say it with your name on it, probably shouldn’t say it.)
If someone doesn’t like what someone is saying to them on FB they can block them.
The case went all the way up to SCOTUS,which ruled 9-0 that stun guns are covered by the 2nd Amendment.
At one point the SCOTUS ruling classified the Massachusetts court ruling as "frivolous".
A court that can issue such a ruling can also see through an equally frivolous attack on the 1st Amendment.
In case anyone's interested the case I referred to is "Caetano v Massachusetts"