PC Police Catch a Retard

danmanjones's picture

Man arrested over anti Muslim tirade wants to meet with worshippers

The guy yelled abuse at Muslims at the site of the terrorist attack a week after the 42 people were killed. The Muslims complained to the cops who were guarding the place & one of them asked "do you know what free speech is?". [source]

 

Some of the shit he yelled: "I'm sick of all these fuckwits", "they need to fuck off", "I'm sick of these fucking Muslims thinking they own the place" & "all Muslims are terrorists and need to get the fuck out of here".

 

Apparently he was flexing & shit during his episode. The teeshirt he wore reads: "Trump for New Zealand"

 

2.333335
Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Comments

Fullauto223cal's picture

Hearing that a man in the new Islamic Republic of New Zealand gets arrested and prosecuted for a "hate filled tirade" against pedo worshipers; a.k.a. hurting Muslim fee-fees.

 

 

-------------------

 

I just looked at the comments section of the YouTube video and surprise, surprise the comments are DISABLED.  Yes indeed, those weak ass New Zealand faggots can't risk anyone outside the country (and outside their reach) expressing an unapproved opinions or typing more "hate filled tirades" against poor helpless Muslims.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

The charge was for disorderly conduct - the same laws exist in the US [sauce] - you ought to know this.

 

He'll not be charged with a "hate crime" though - NZ doesn't have any "hate" laws on the books. Nor does it have an ADL. Coincidence?

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

The charge was for disorderly conduct - the same laws exist in the US [sauce] - you ought to know this.

 

No, we don't have the same law, we have a law with the same NAME that contains nothing which would prohibit someone yelling something "offensive" in public.
 

Tennessee Code 39-17-305. Disorderly conduct.

 

(a)  A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:

     (1)  Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;

     (2)  Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or

     (3)  Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose.

(b)  A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.

(c)  A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

 

The fact of the matter is that New Zealand is punishing people for saying mean things publiclly.  There is NO comparison to be made between your law and ours.  Our Federal Constitution prohibits our Government from making any law like that.  My State's Consitution also probits it under Article 1: Section 19 "The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

 

I know you live in NZ but man I wish you understood the dangers of prosecuting people for merely saying "offensive things".

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Here's the law...

 

Disorderly behaviour

Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in or within view of any public place, behaves, or incites or encourages any person to behave, in a riotous, offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly manner that is likely in the circumstances to cause violence against persons or property to start or continue.

http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53398.html

 

 

This is what's reported as his charge...

 

"being in a public place when he behaved in an insulting manner that was likely in the circumstances to cause violence against persons to start"

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111985185/man-who-abused-muslims-at-al-noor-mosque-in-christchurch-pleads-guilty

 

 

 

Any further comments from the land of the ADL & "hate crime" law?

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

man I wish you understood the dangers of prosecuting people for merely saying "offensive things".

 

Breach of Peace Laws (in the US)

This doctrine is drawn from the Supreme Court’s fighting-words decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). While distributing Jehovah’s Witness literature in Rochester, New Hampshire, Walter Chaplinsky attracted a crowd. He was confronted by a city marshal who warned him that his activities were disturbing some citizens. In response, Chaplinsky called the city marshal a “God damned racketeer” and a “damned Fascist.”

 

He was subsequently charged and convicted under a city ordinance that prohibited use of offensive language toward persons in public places. Chaplinsky appealed, claiming the city ordinance violated his First Amendment rights.

 

The Court ruled that Chaplinsky’s utterances were “fighting words” and therefore not protected speech under the First Amendment; by their nature, his words inflicted injury or tended to incite an immediate breach of the peace. In sum, the Court found that fighting words could provoke the average person to retaliate and cause a breach of the peace.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1204/breach-of-the-peace-laws

 

"Fighting words" sound an awfully lot like "offensive things". Where's your 1A god now?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down