Korean Job Discussion Forums

[john152]

Here is an article about a Muslim judge in the US dismissing a case of assault based on Sharia Law.

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html

[catman]

Good lord. I thought this was from the Onion.

[stilicho25]

the judge is saying its been manipulated. not sure who to believe. looks pretty bad though.

[The Cosmic Hum]

Obviously, the judge will post that he has mental illness soon enough.

Hard to believe someone could keep their job after a clown act like that.

[Squire]

I expect this type of BS in the UK. It would be sad if the US also became as 'liberal' as we have

[ontheway]

Prosecutor: "Your Honor, this defendant brutally attacked and killed the victim. We demand justice."

Judge: "What do you have to say for yourself my good man (and fellow group member).

Defendant: "I didn't like his face."

Judge: "Sounds good to me. Case dismissed. You are free to go."



Solution: This kind of animal (the judge) should be removed from the bench and the legal profession.

[Adventurer]

Assaulting anyone for any reason if the person has not physically threatened you should lead to the incarceration of the said individual. Another judge should look at this, and the judge in question shouldn't be a judge anymore.

[young_clinton]

[comm]

[Steelrails]

This is why duels should be allowed (and were allowed). People who felt their honor was insulted could challenge someone to a duel. In theory, this made sure that before people said something truly insulting they'd think about it or risk death in a duel or at least shame by refusing to answer the challenge.

You really shouldn't mock people's religion like that. If its wrong to gay bash or say racist or sexist things, then you should leave religion as well. Yes, yes, I know you people are going to say, "I think you should be able to mock anything as false and superstitious and shouldn't have to show respect". Fine, but don't whine and come crying when that person decks you in the mouth and makes you eat dirt.

I do think there are "fighting words" and "fighting actions" and free speech doesn't give you the right to moon me, insult my religion and ethnicity, and then cry and sue me if I kick your butt.

I mean those of us who are condemning this, how would we react if some Korean person was wearing some bigoted costume and saying bigoted things and some NET decked them? There would be cheers. And what if the Korean court said, well based on American culture, that guy was justified? We'd be rejoicing. How is this any different? What because its Muslims and we're sick and tired of them being in the news? What if it was a KKK rally and the guy was dressed like sambo? Would we have the same reaction? But to me, it seems like all those different examples would all be the same.

At the same time we have to have free speech and self control. After all, the marketplace of ideas is best when you have broad free speech.

The big issue here isn't the law or using sharia law. The big issue is custom and manners. People need to have better manners when sharing competing ideas. Parades and cartoons are just juvenile. We used to discuss things with substantive debate, works of literature (not NYTimes books), poetry, substantive journal columns. Now its shock value.

I guess that's where I come down. I'm for free speech. You can say some utterly nasty things. But I'm not for the limitless protection of shock value. At some point, you're asking for it and if someone gives it, then you get no sympathy. Fight each other if you have to, but don't come whining and crying because you love to dish it out but can't take it.

[comm]

[The Cosmic Hum]

[Steelrails]

[The Floating World]

[comm]