Judge tosses charge against Muslim who allegedly attacked atheist for mocking Mohammed

posted at 4:30 pm on February 24, 2012 by Allahpundit

Someone e-mailed us about this last night but I didn’t have time to look into it and figured the facts couldn’t be as bad as he suggested. Wrong: They are that bad. An atheist was parading down the street as “Zombie Mohammed” last year when a Muslim bystander allegedly flew into a rage and started to choke him. Watch the first clip below; it’s hard to tell what’s going on but something happened, resulting in both the victim and the attacker supposedly tracking down a cop to complain. Why would the suspect want to talk to a cop? Because, silly: He thought it was a criminal offense to insult Islam. And as it turns out, it almost is.

The cop testified at the trial but despite his testimony and the video, the judge — a Muslim convert — dismissed the charge for lack of evidence. As Eugene Volokh notes, that’s arguably defensible: If he thought the cop wasn’t credible for whatever reason then he wouldn’t have much left to get him to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Don’t get hung up on the dismissal, though. The true outrage here is in the lecture that this halfwit delivered from the bench to the victim, not the attacker. Andy McCarthy at the Corner has the full transcript but this will suffice:

Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca. To be a good Muslim, before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt…

Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.

Listen for yourself here. He never quite gets to the point of saying that the atheist had it coming — remember, the charges were dismissed supposedly, supposedly, because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that any harassment occurred — but that’s the upshot of this gratuitous little sensitivity lecture in open court. I can’t imagine what this means either: “[Y]ou have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.” It’s incoherent, but to the extent that he means mocking Mohammed might not qualify as protected speech, I think he’s suggesting that it might fall under the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment. That’s one of the dumbest, most pernicious lines of Supreme Court free-speech jurisprudence precisely because it gives prosecutors an avenue to suppress especially “insensitive” speech if they’re so inclined. I wonder what would have happened here had Pennsylvania charged the atheist with harassment on grounds that insulting Mohammed constitutes “fighting words” to Muslims and therefore his speech isn’t protected. Would this stupid judge have convicted him? Read McCarthy’s transcript and decide for yourself.

The worst part of this? The state can’t appeal. At first blush I thought prosecutors might be allowed to appeal an acquittal in a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial, but a little googling tells me no. The alleged assailant evidently is off scot free. The only avenue left may be to try to sanction the judge for ranting at the victim about how thoughtless it was of him to exercise his First Amendment rights. At a minimum, calling the guy a “doofus” violates Canon 3(A)(3) of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct, which says judges should “be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom they deal in their official capacity.” We all know the left won’t move a muscle to discipline this guy so it’s up to Pennsylvania Republicans. Hop to it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I would expect nothing less from a jihady in a judges clothing .
And yes , he is a muslim.
So he has no allegience to our Constitution, unless it benefits him and his salary and freedoms , as a muslim.

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Just to be on the safe side: you guys would be just as outraged if the atheist had paraded as “Zombie Jesus” and the guy attacking had been an especially militant Lutheran, right? Please tell me that the moral here is not “Muslims are even bigger jerks than atheists” but rather “you don’t resolve religious disputes by way of choking in this country.”

Thanks in advance.

Time Lord on February 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Um…yes? You don’t have the right to physically attack someone because your sensibilities are offended.

amerpundit on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

“I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. Muslims tend to be simple-minded medieval people who still think its the 7th century. That’s why they commit so many acts of violence like beheading and maiming people, like in the Dark Ages.”

WarEagle01 on February 24, 2012 at 5:23 PM

What was that thingie that Newt suggested about canning activist judges…?

RedbonePro on February 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 5:20 PM
To him Islam comes first

That is why I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT OR ANY PERSON RUNNING FOR OFFICE if they said they were of that faith. But, if one running is a closet rop type, then what and how do we deal with that?
L

letget on February 24, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Ah, the new conservative platform: All grievance, all the time!

plewis on February 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Didn’t Newt say something about an out of control judiciary…?

… And he was mocked for it.

Seven Percent Solution on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

You don’t have the right to physically attack someone because your sensibilities are offended.

amerpundit on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Unless when it is a muslim attacking a Jew :

Back in June of 2010 a leader of a pro-Palestinian student group at University of Berkeley allegedly rammed a Jewish woman with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to an anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” rally conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine. The counter-protest was dubbed “Israel Wants Peace Week.”

Now, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg has deemed that the Muslim students who harassed Jessica Felber and other Jewish students were simply engaging in protected political speech.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ca-judge-deems-ramming-jewish-woman-with-shopping-cart-free-speech/

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Ah, the new conservative platform: All grievance, all the time!

plewis on February 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Yes, silly conservatives thinking the First Amendment isn’t subordinate to protecting the sensibilities of one particular religion.

amerpundit on February 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Ah, the new conservative platform: All grievance, all the time!

plewis on February 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM

So you’re cool with the judge’s words and actions then?

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Frankly, this atheist deserved to be punched out. He was a rude disgrace. But then the Muslim deserved to pay the trivial fine that should have been assessed. And this ‘Judge’ should be referred to the Penn. Judicial disciplinary board. Where do we get such bad Judges?

pat on February 24, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Ah, the new conservative platform: All grievance, all the time!

plewis on February 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Ah, yes. Silly conservatives, putting freedom of expression over the sensibilities of a violent religious extremist.

MadisonConservative on February 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Frankly, this atheist deserved to be punched out.

pat on February 24, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Tell us why, Judge.

MadisonConservative on February 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM

You atheists should just stick to mocking Christians just like the liberals do. Stick with the safe bet when your being an obnoxious ahole, Christians will turn the other cheek, Muslims will chop them both off along with your head.

Liberals will probably cheer the courts decision. A muslim judge dimisses the case against a muslim. The Black DoJ backs out of the case against the Black Panthers. The Gay judge throws out the law against Gay marriage in California. Yes sir, our judiciary at it’s finest!

Africanus on February 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM

But, if one running is a closet rop type, then what and how do we deal with that?
L

letget on February 24, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I don’t know. If that actually happened I think the uproar would shake the very foundations of DC itself.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Didn’t Newt say something about an out of control judiciary…?

… And he was mocked for it.

Seven Percent Solution on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Mocked by Ms Conservative Ann Coulter no less !

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Being a PA resident myself, I got curious to see if there could be a recall effort initiated and found this:

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania judges may be removed in one of two ways:

The judicial conduct board investigates complaints regarding judicial conduct filed by individuals or initiated by the board. The board determines whether probable cause exists to file formal charges, and presents its case to the court of judicial discipline. The court has the authority to impose sanctions, ranging from a reprimand to removal from office, if the formal charges are sustained.

Judges may be impeached by the house of representatives and convicted by two thirds of the senate.

Also, there’s this, from the link to the Court of Judicial Discipline:

The Court of Judicial Discipline of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was established by Constitutional Amendment adopted on May 18, 1993 and declared in effect by the Governor’s Office on August 11, 1993. The Court of Judicial Discipline has jurisdiction over all judicial officers in Pennsylvania, and must hear and decide formal charges which are filed against a judicial officer. Judicial officers include all Magisterial District Judges; Judges of the Courts of Common Pleas, the Commonwealth Court and the Superior Court; and Justices of the Supreme Court. The Court of Judicial Discipline has the authority to impose sanctions, ranging from a reprimand to removal from office, if the formal charges are sustained.

So it appears that this moron magistrate — and it’s only within the past several years they’ve been referred to as “magisterial district judges” — can be subject to a disciplinary procedure and be removed. While it’s not a voter recall, there is a procedure in place to get these travesties out of office.

PatriotGal2257 on February 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

MadisonConservative on February 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Watch the trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs

pat on February 24, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Didn’t Newt say something about an out of control judiciary…?

… And he was mocked for it.

Seven Percent Solution on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Team newt should run with this story.

the_nile on February 24, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Atheists, this is the kind of stuff you need to be going after, not some cross out in the middle of the stupid desert. And as a Christian, I’ll be glad to donate to whoever takes this guy’s civil case, and/or goes after the judge. This is the real threat to freedom of/from religion.

Nom de Boom on February 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM

burserker on February 24, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I would probably shake my head in a very disappointing manner.

tommer74 on February 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM

It shows rich diversity in the judiciary. It has that going for it and like Maj Hasan, yada yada America is crap without it.

Somebody burning toast?

BL@KBIRD on February 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Judicial complaint against the judge with the state bar association, or whatever entity handles judicial complaints in that state, and civil lawsuit against the assailant for money damages. Although it’s doubtful the assailant has any money, you can keep renewing the judgment and follow the guy around for years, garnishing any paychecks he receives, filing liens against any property he buys. He shouldn’t get away with it.

mbs on February 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM

PatriotGal2257 on February 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Removal is the only option.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Time Lord on February 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM

A lot of atheists have said some pretty vicious stuff about my religion. I’ve never physically assaulted any of them.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 24, 2012 at 5:39 PM

just another example of our courts run amok-turning on the victim and transforming the perp into a saintly poor put upon victim because he belongs to a protected social justice class of people more equal than the rest of us.

it’s appeasement. it never works. the same appeasement is used on criminals in cases not involving religion or the first amendment-because it’s a ‘human rights violation’ to put anyone particularly one of the hate crime classes in jail. punishment is a concept alien now to our system of jurisprudence. so alien it is considered worse than any crime someone may have committed.

social justice is meant to destroy our constitution- that is all. the rule of law has to be degraded and the equality of all has to be disallowed and reset according to a specific hierarchy to disenfranchise the majority- to destroy democracy. again some pigs are more equal than others.

at base the individual cases representing affronts to our freedom and rights are all the same- the differences would be what the social justice trigger was to sever the victim form his or her rights while exempting the defendant for his criminality. physical assault is physical assault no matter the reasons of the aggressor. it’s always been open season on cops- and the left has been manipulating the justice system so it wil be open season on political and social justice dissenters- in other words people who believe in the rule of law applied equally to all. it’s been nearly 50 years in the making-this upending of the constitution to force people to submit to accepting their inequality before the state. what’s shocking and sad is so few especially those who call themselves liberals care to notice it or honestly face what exactly is in obama’s “justice” department and how it subverts the entire rule of law from the top down.

and exemptions for religion have no place in our rule of law.you can’t be allowed to sacrifice human beings on the altar of one’s religion and get away with it. or rape women- as happens in england to western girls at the hands of muslims- because they’re asking for it according to your religion. or honor kill your daughter because your religion condones it. or punch someone in the face because they claim your god is dead- a flesh eating zombie from hell. leftists want sharia law because it is fascist and completely controls people through threat of draconian violence and death for failure to submit. they dig fascism-its what they really crave and they will attain it by any means necessary including sharia laws infecting and poisoning our courts.

mittens on February 24, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Judge Dhimmi is a dummy.

Bruno Strozek on February 24, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Choking that’s it? Where was the knife to lop his head off, or the explosive vest?

tommer74 on February 24, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Ah, the new conservative platform: All grievance, all the time!

plewis on February 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I am dealing with a judge right now who decided the law is not his problem. I am not concerned about going over his head and he may be removed from office. But if you have lawless judges it breaks down civilization. No society can tolerate that for long.

Vigilante justice disappeared because as a society we put in a Court system which judges the law not dictate it. Lose that and it is not pretty.

BullShooterAsInElk on February 24, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Didn’t Newt say something about an out of control judiciary…?

… And he was mocked for it.

Seven Percent Solution on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Mocked by Ms Severely Conservative Ann Coulter no less !

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

FIFY

Dr Evil on February 24, 2012 at 5:40 PM

What are the athiests saying about this ruling ?
I hope they are OK with being punching bags for
sharia- Odinga’s cousin !!!!

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Ah, the new conservative platform: All grievance, all the time!

plewis on February 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Just following your lead. Seems to work out well for you commies, what with all the raaaaacism you try to accuse everyone of.

BTW, cant wait until one of these mooslim animals chokes out your daughter or wife (or husband, most likely), or throwns acid in their face, or detonates a car bomb next to them, or rapes and beheads them, or sells them into slavery, or mutilates them with a machete, or honor kills them, and you get your ass kicked out of court for being insensetive to the animalistic needs for death and destruction of the mooslism animal.

Good luck with being a liberal tool.

MooCow…out.

MooCowBang on February 24, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Mark W. Martin
Magisterial District Judge – Cumberland County Pa.
Phone: 717.766.4575
Fax: 717.766.2238

I encourage all liberty loving Americans to call and fax this judge and let him know what real Americans think about his ruling.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 24, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Based on this ruling, I would say I now have the right to kick the living essence out of any muslim who insults American culture, calls any of our military baby-killers, says anything bad about the US, burns a US flag, calls me an infidel, or pretty much anything else I decide is offensive.

dentarthurdent on February 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Fundamental Atheists would get a little more respect if they mocked more than just the ‘safe’ religions.

MechanicalBill on February 24, 2012 at 5:45 PM

mittens on February 24, 2012 at 5:40 PM

So what you are saying is now that Obama is president – dissent isn’t patriotic anymore.

Dr Evil on February 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

You know what offends me as an American ?
Someone burning our flag .
Now I know what rights I have when I see muslims+ Democrats burn our flag.

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM

At first blush I thought prosecutors might be allowed to appeal an acquittal in a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial, but a little googling tells me no. The alleged assailant evidently is off scot free.

Not entirely true. The victim can make himself a plaintiff in a civil suit and go after the Muslim’s wallet.

NorthernCross on February 24, 2012 at 5:49 PM

On the one hand, pretty terrible decision by the judge. On the other hand, the troll got what was coming to him. You wanted to evoke a reaction? Success!

Benaiah on February 24, 2012 at 5:49 PM

You can also send your emails to wanda.sweigart@pacourts.us

Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges

2. Magisterial district judges shall respect and comply with the law and shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. Magisterial district judges shall be faithful to the law and maintain competence in it. They shall be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism. . .Magisterial district judges shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom they deal in their official capacity,. . .

8. Magisterial district judges shall disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . .(1) they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;(c) is known by the magisterial district judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding

KaroleD28 on February 24, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Fundamental Atheists would get a little more respect if they mocked more than just the ‘safe’ religions.

MechanicalBill on February 24, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Exactly right. They are hypocrites when they only attack Christianity because they feel safe in doing so, both physically and legally. I’m surprised this particular atheist was bold enough to at least be consistent with his mockery of other people’s faith. The judge in this case is obviously a major douchebag and free speech should be protected but basically I don’t have sympathy for any of them.

cicerone on February 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM

On the one hand, pretty terrible decision by the judge. On the other hand, the troll got what was coming to him. You wanted to evoke a reaction? Success!

Benaiah on February 24, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Just keep in mind that muslims view ALL non-muslims (Christian, atheist, Jew, Hindu….) as infidels who must die, and based on this ruling the muslims get to decide what they deem offensive and how they can respond. So if you’re saying the atheist got what he deserved – watch out cuz your Christian speech and activities may make you the next target.

dentarthurdent on February 24, 2012 at 5:55 PM

watch out cuz your Christian speech and activities may make you the next target.

dentarthurdent on February 24, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Newsflash: They already are.

cicerone on February 24, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Removal is the only option.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Yes. There have been a few magisterial district judges who have been removed over the years and good riddance to them, but this, I believe, is a first in terms of offense.

PatriotGal2257 on February 24, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Wow. Are people still sure that Catholics will take your freedom before Sharia?

Esthier on February 24, 2012 at 5:57 PM

And so it starts, jihadi irrationalism from the bench.

jake49 on February 24, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Has Obama apologized to the Muslim yet?

pat on February 24, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Just keep in mind that muslims view ALL non-muslims (Christian, atheist, Jew, Hindu….) as infidels who must die, and based on this ruling the muslims get to decide what they deem offensive and how they can respond. So if you’re saying the atheist got what he deserved – watch out cuz your Christian speech and activities may make you the next target.

dentarthurdent

Yes well my Christian activities don’t include mocking other peoples’ beliefs. Disagreeing with them sure but not mocking.

Benaiah on February 24, 2012 at 5:58 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on February 24, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Yep. Just a bunch of backward hicks here. :)

Dr. Conservative on February 24, 2012 at 5:59 PM

And so it starts, jihadi irrationalism from the bench.

jake49 on February 24, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Unfortunately, yes. To go along with the Left-wing, atheistic irrationalism from the likes of the ACLU.

cicerone on February 24, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Maybe the atheist should carry pepper spray next time.

And so it starts, jihadi irrationalism from the bench.

jake49 on February 24, 2012 at 5:57 PM

It has been going on for a while now in some enclaves where there are large numbers of these Muslim freaks. Ever hear of Dearborn(istan), Michigan?

Sporty1946 on February 24, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Dumb ruling by the judge.
Also Zombie Mohammed? Atheists sure know how to make friends. ;)

philoquin on February 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Just “dumb?” Let me guess, you’re not outraged because, hey, the guy was a lousy atheist.

Ever hear of Martin Niemoller? He has a famous quote about the Nazis. Google it.

Cicero43 on February 24, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Yes well my Christian activities don’t include mocking other peoples’ beliefs. Disagreeing with them sure but not mocking.

Benaiah on February 24, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Sorry, but Islam deserves to be mocked, degraded and defeated. Until these heathen animals discover how to live peaceably with everyone who does not believe as they do, like all other religions, then they do not deserve to be treated with respect.

Sporty1946 on February 24, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Without really paying attention to the tag under the photo I truly thought this was in Britain. What a wake up call.

LtBarnwell02 on February 24, 2012 at 6:10 PM

C.O.E.X.I.S.T.

SouthernGent on February 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended.

That is precisely what our forefathers really intended! We don’t have a 1st Amendment to protect people from being offended. And we don’t have a 1st Amendment to protect people from unpopular speech. We have a 1st Amendment to protect speech that may be offensive and even unpopular.

I wonder if this idiot judge thinks that flag burning isn’t covered. Or what he would do about people who say stupid things like how America asked for 9/11. I find people who say and do those things to be enormously offensive. Do I therefore have a right to clobber them?

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Because its a ‘culture’?

Wowzer!

And here the judge is trying to tell a zombie mohammed atheist that he shouldn’t be criticizing a ‘culture’? Doesn’t this judge KNOW that there is a large zombie culture in America? Why, he is disrespecting zombiness!!

Remember, jihadis can only kill you.

Zombies can convert you to their kind.

Beware of who’s ‘culture’ you start ruling on…

ajacksonian on February 24, 2012 at 6:16 PM

yeah, sorry, but as a Christian, your mockery of my faith and my G*d does nothing to shake my faith. Hence, I don’t particularly feel like blowing you up for it. I might pray for you though, if I’m feeling particularly moved to.

But, we’re talking about the culture of the perpetually offended, when we’re discussing Muslims. Small penis syndrome on steroids.

KaroleD28 on February 24, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Herman Cain had something to say about creeping sharia. The MSM ridiculed him, but Herman had misunderestimated the threat. It’s galloping jihadhiism.

Anyone selling their front row tickets for next year’s parade?? I may bring a self-defense device, as in Louisville Slugger.

NO ONE is going to lay a hand on me because of my OPINION. The first amendment isn’t needed for inoffensive remarks; offensive remarks are EXACTLY what it is intended for.

So FU, Mo.

fred5678 on February 24, 2012 at 6:17 PM

To go along with the Left-wing, atheistic irrationalism from the likes of the ACLU.

cicerone on February 24, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Hey dummy, the atheist in this story was the rational one and the judge was the religious bigot. Are all atheists rational? He11 no! Is atheism rational? You betcha!

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 6:18 PM

There is no need to protect popular speech. Our founders considered unpopular speech as worthy of protection. Precisely because it’s the exact sort of speech needing defending.

KaroleD28 on February 24, 2012 at 6:18 PM

RE:

Apparently Judge Martin insults lots of people who come before him.
http://www.kudzu.com/m/District-Justice-Mark-W-Martin-20920777/reviews/ – LASue @4:42

Here is a link to video of Judge Martin discussing his views on truancy

Again, in this video clip, Martin brings up his particular impressions of ME values but does not impose sharia in any obvious way.

But it does get worse, as apparently this judge threatened Ernest Perce with jail for releasing audio of trial

So how did we get here?

Martin was re-elected after running unopposed in 2011. He cross-filed with the Republican and Democratic parties with his term expiring in 2018 if this judgement is permitted to pass.
Cumberland County, Unofficial 2011 Municipal Election Results

In the State of Pennsylvania (Cumberland), low-level judges such as Magistrates are NOT required to be attorneys. A bachelor’s degree and work experience usually constitute the minimum requirements for judges and magistrates, but most have law degrees and some are elected [link].

Magistrate Judges have certain rules to follow and Martin is either unfamiliar with these rules or he blatantly ignores Rules 2, 4, & 8

Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges

2. Magisterial district judges shall respect and comply with the law and shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. Magisterial district judges shall be faithful to the law and maintain competence in it. They shall be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism. . .Magisterial district judges shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom they deal in their official capacity,. . .

8. Magisterial district judges shall disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . .(1) they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;(c) is known by the magisterial district judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
===================
Interesting comment from another source:

I wonder if the tautological Mark Martin is his original name? Both these names are derived from the Latin Marcus, which means “belonging to the god Mars”. And who is Mars?

The god of WAR.

If this name was not deliberately selected to indicate a jihad agenda, then it is a very fine joke.

heroyalwhyness on February 24, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Fundamental Atheists

MechanicalBill on February 24, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Wowza! You’ve invented a brand new philosophy. Please, do tell me more about “Fundamental Atheists?” I may be one and not even know. How does a “Fundamental Atheist” differ from your common, garden variety atheist?

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Dumb ruling by the judge.
Also Zombie Mohammed? Atheists sure know how to make friends. ;)

philoquin on February 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM

There was also a zombie priest, but of course, he didn’t get attacked by a lunatic catholic.

Night Owl on February 24, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I think I’ll celebrate this ruling by burning a few Korans.

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Impeach this traitorous judge.

profitsbeard on February 24, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I am offended.

Paul-Cincy on February 24, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I think I’ll celebrate this ruling by burning a few Korans.

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 6:25 PM

If you have dogs, and you need training pads for them , ….

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Newt is right about attacking these judges and bringing them under control. They represent one third of the government. Their edicts are not the final word.

Wether it be state judges or federal judges they are the most arrogant, self-righteous, demagogues in goverment. Unless we defeat them there is no hope. Go Newt!!

Kaffa on February 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Based on this ruling, I would say I now have the right to kick the living essence out of any muslim who insults American culture, calls any of our military baby-killers, says anything bad about the US, burns a US flag, calls me an infidel, or pretty much anything else I decide is offensive.

dentarthurdent on February 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM

+100

I intend to start exercising my new rights.

BacaDog on February 24, 2012 at 6:32 PM

If the laws don’t work, then let’s settle this by violence. I really don’t think Muslims match our collective ability to apply violence if we put our mind to it.

Random on February 24, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Less than 10.00 each. Heat your house with them.

KaroleD28 on February 24, 2012 at 6:37 PM

The judge is NOT a Muslim.

I repeat. The judge is NOT a Muslim. If Allah(pundit) would have taken the five minutes I did to actually, um, call the District Court and talk to an administrator, you would find out that the transcript is *wrong*. The person I spoke to said they understood how the audio could have been misinterpreted. The judge, Mark Martin, is a Christian, not a Muslim. Which is why he keeps referring to Islam in the 3rd person (their culture, their religion, etc)

Geez, and we wonder why blogs get a bad rap.

BocaJuniors on February 24, 2012 at 6:40 PM

One more reason to elect Newt.

DDay on February 24, 2012 at 6:43 PM

The judge, Mark Martin, is a Christian, not a Muslim. Which is why he keeps referring to Islam in the 3rd person (their culture, their religion, etc)

“Christian”?

I think the word you’re looking for is “dhimmi”.

Random on February 24, 2012 at 6:44 PM

The judge, Mark Martin, is a Christian, not a Muslim. Which is why he keeps referring to Islam in the 3rd person (their culture, their religion, etc)

BocaJuniors on February 24, 2012 at 6:40 PM

So does Obama :O

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 6:45 PM

It doesn’t really matter if he’s Christian or Muslim. He’s a moron with NO understanding of the oath to protect the US Constitution he swore to uphold.

KaroleD28 on February 24, 2012 at 6:49 PM

I would defend the rights of the paraders to the end of the Earth…but still more evidence that atheists are d*cks and ugly ones at that.

Free speech is paramount.

CW on February 24, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Ah, but remember atheists – its the Christians you really have to worry about, right? Right? Don’t you remember when that Christian attacked you physically cause… something or other offensive?

Yeah, I don’t either.

Midas on February 24, 2012 at 6:54 PM

burrata on February 24, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I’ve tried, but she wouldn’t squat on one. She’s a smart dog :-)

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Judge should definitely be thrown out. I feel no sympathy for the idiot atheist.

This right here, this situation is what militant atheism hath wrought in this country. You slowly push out a largely benevolent religion (Christianity), something is going to fill that void, that being Islam. You could have learned to tolerate(there is that word) Christians and their offensive church bake sales, but no.

Now you see what you are going to get. Muslims will show no tolerance towards atheists. Muslims are believers, atheists are not. Did you think you were going to be buds in the pursuit of stomping out Christianity? I’m not a churchgoer, but I recognize the wisdom in scripture. Its just a shame what this country has come to.

Codec717 on February 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM

It’s blatently political decision like this that will eventually undermine the rule of law as we know it.

EdmundBurke247 on February 24, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Watching the first video from 0:45 to 1:05, I think the “assault”, for the most part, didn’t even happen. I don’t think Zombie Mohammed ever gets choked. And the Muslim guy is pretty calm throughout. He probably tries to grab Zombie’s sign and beard, but that’s about it.

Zombie: Huh?
Muslim (calmly): You gonna protect this? I gotta call the cops for you.
Zombie: Call the cops?
Muslim (calmly): Yeah. That’s ridiculous.
Zombie: Hey, hey, hey, (Muslim’s probably trying to take his sign)
Muslim (calmly): Take it down.
Zombie: Please, stop, you’re on film. (Now, he starts screaming bloody murder as if he’s being assaulted, which he obviously isn’t.) Police! Hey, hey! He’s attacking me! Come here! (Obviously not getting choked, he’s screaming at the top of his lungs.)
Muslim (walks off.)

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the strongest criticisms of that judge, I’m not defending him. Just saying, this lying liberal atheist Zombie was, as liberals always are, a complete jerk.

imasoulman on February 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM

This judge unacceptable. Is he removable?

jeanie on February 24, 2012 at 7:24 PM

For us to have any rights, no matter how much you disagree with his actions, this atheist’s first amendment rights MUST be protected!

KaroleD28 on February 24, 2012 at 7:30 PM

What a sham! Sharia law isn’t taking place in this country..righttt

sadsushi on February 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Contact ATTACK WATCH! They’ll get right on it.

LeftCoastRight on February 24, 2012 at 7:45 PM

The judge is NOT a Muslim.

I repeat. The judge is NOT a Muslim. If Allah(pundit) would have taken the five minutes I did to actually, um, call the District Court and talk to an administrator, you would find out that the transcript is *wrong*. The person I spoke to said they understood how the audio could have been misinterpreted. The judge, Mark Martin, is a Christian, not a Muslim. Which is why he keeps referring to Islam in the 3rd person (their culture, their religion, etc)

Geez, and we wonder why blogs get a bad rap.

BocaJuniors on February 24, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Instead of taking five minutes to call and talk to someone trying to protect the judge, try listening to the proceeding yourself. The person you talked to is lying and you are wrong.

The judge says he is a Muslim.

Zooid on February 24, 2012 at 7:51 PM

imasoulman on February 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Exactly. Which is why I said he should have had a trivial penalty for the assault. Say $50 plus court costs.

pat on February 24, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Yes well my Christian activities don’t include mocking other peoples’ beliefs. Disagreeing with them sure but not mocking.

Benaiah on February 24, 2012 at 5:58 PM

What you seem to not understand is that just disagreeing with a muslim IS mocking them in their eyes – just being a non-muslim of any kind is enough for a death sentence in their eyes. This case is no different than the news artists and cartoonists who have been threatened with death (and some actually killed) just for drawing a simple picture of Mohammed.

dentarthurdent on February 24, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Wowza! You’ve invented a brand new philosophy. Please, do tell me more about “Fundamental Atheists?” I may be one and not even know. How does a “Fundamental Atheist” differ from your common, garden variety atheist?

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Do orthodox atheists have to wear funny clothes and beards?

dentarthurdent on February 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Freedom of speech for ME…but not for THEE!?

(somebody forgot..)
HANG IN THERE NEWT ! ! !

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2012 at 8:05 PM

The judge is NOT a Muslim.

I repeat. The judge is NOT a Muslim. If Allah(pundit) would have taken the five minutes I did to actually, um, call the District Court and talk to an administrator, you would find out that the transcript is *wrong*. The person I spoke to said they understood how the audio could have been misinterpreted. The judge, Mark Martin, is a Christian, not a Muslim. Which is why he keeps referring to Islam in the 3rd person (their culture, their religion, etc)

Geez, and we wonder why blogs get a bad rap.

BocaJuniors on February 24, 2012 at 6:40 PM

You calloed and got someone? Bullcrap. Thread posted at 430/ Their say ends at 4.
“Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.’
Explain that.

katy the mean old lady on February 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Wowza! You’ve invented a brand new philosophy. Please, do tell me more about “Fundamental Atheists?” I may be one and not even know. How does a “Fundamental Atheist” differ from your common, garden variety atheist?

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 6:21 PM

I’m betting they’re the evangelical atheist. I usually refer to them as Atheists (capital “A”). Basically the people who see it as an identity. Like vegans.

I think there are many different types of atheists. While most of the vocal ones are d-bags I think most are just nice people. Some are even church goers.

Ampersand on February 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

dentarthurdent on February 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM

And hats to cover our horns :-)

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Judge should probably be disbarred as he’s not particularly familiar with the 1st Amendment. I would have thought that was a requirement for the job…

imperfectamerica on February 24, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Ah, but remember atheists – its the Christians you really have to worry about, right? Right? Don’t you remember when that Christian attacked you physically cause… something or other offensive?

Yeah, I don’t either.

Midas on February 24, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Lumping all atheists together as the same is equivalent to lumping all Christians together as the same (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, etc). Attacking all atheists for the actions of a few loudmouth attention seekers is equivalent to attacking all Christains for the activities of the Westboro Baptist church psychos.
I was raised Catholic, but I now consider myself atheist. I don’t go to rallies for it, or support ACLU or protests of any kind – it’s just a simple non-belief. I don’t care what kind of signs or symbols people put up. I still celebrate holidays like Christmas – but for the traditional aspects not religious. I just see myself as non-religious – and I really don’t care what other people want to believe – do whatever you want as long as you don’t use it as an excuse to attack or kill others. While Christianity had their time of killing heretics and infidels, I believe Christianity as a whole has outgrown that type of childish behavior. Not so with Islam – they kill people just for not being muslim or for disagreeing with them – which is why I do fear the possibility of muslims getting any control in this country.

dentarthurdent on February 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3