Sensible Erection | Epic Fail

Thursday, 9 July 2009

quote [ While Marwa el-Sherbini was recalling how the accused had insulted her, the very same man strode across the courtroom and plunged a knife into her 18 times. As her husband ran to save her, he was shot by a police officer who mistook him for the attacker. ]

She was pregnant, too.

Huffington Post article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/headscarf-martyr-marwa-sh_n_226104.html

Wiki Article on Marwa el-Sherbini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwa_El-Sherbini

[by Shirobake@4:33amGMT] [+10 WTF]

Comments

Coulter said @ 4:46am GMT on 9th Jul [Score:3 Insightful]
this,right here,this why we can't have nice things.

Dalej said @ 5:20am GMT on 9th Jul [Score:-1 Flamebait]
like sharia law in europe?

Roulette1337 said @ 4:52am GMT on 9th Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
I think poor courtroom proceedures IS the main issue here and the actions of one nut cant be blamed on an entire society.

Shirobake said @ 4:57am GMT on 9th Jul
I'm not agreeing with those who say otherwise. I just think the entire matter is rather fucked up, to say the least.

warmseat said @ 4:59am GMT on 9th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
and questions remain as to why he was allowed to bring a knife into the courtroom.

WTF? W.T.F.

Godfuck. That's the kind of events that start bloody riots. Worst of both worlds: this is underreported and it's a travesty of justice, it's decried widely and it sparks more fundamentalism and hate.
And the poor kid, you can imagine him just ready in a few years to join whatever movement promises him a 'just vengeance'.

micham18 said @ 5:14am GMT on 9th Jul
It was on the BBC newsfeed a few days back, wouldn't really call that underreported.

Shirobake said @ 5:27am GMT on 9th Jul
Devil's advocate: what was the nature of how it was reported? How in- depth did the report go? Have there been subsequent reports on the aftermath?

Now granted, yes, this happened in Germany- but this was a particularly heinous tragedy- and I think it's safe to say that the issue of anti-Islamic sentiment, and the possibility of that sentiment leading to violence, is one which Britons might also be concerned?

willrogers said @ 7:49am GMT on 9th Jul
I think that many of these people outraged by the supposed lack of coverage on the issue are actually upset that it wasn't initially tied to anti--Islamism in Europe in general or even just Germany and/or her religion and the bigotry of the attacker weren't prominent enough in the reports.

warmseat said @ 8:48am GMT on 9th Jul
ok, I goofed, should have written: if this is underreported, ~~and~~ it's a travesty of justice, if it's decried widely ~~and~~ it sparks more fundamentalism and hate. Fucked if it's reported, fucked if it's not.

Stupid posting fingers of mine.

willrogers said @ 9:23am GMT on 9th Jul
I understood what you first wrote, I was just trying to explore the thought process behind the people making a big deal out of this beyond issues of courtroom safety, especially those making it a religious/bigotry thing by the government and media.

Skits said @ 5:06am GMT on 9th Jul
That bastard deserves a slow and agonizing death.

actionmonkey said @ 5:19am GMT on 9th Jul
Tell me who's the fucking terrorist!

badgerbaiter said @ 6:11pm GMT on 9th Jul
Robin Hood.

PottyMouth said @ 5:21am GMT on 9th Jul
What I don't understand is how, in a relatively small, enclosed space, even filled with people, how the police officer could have mistaken the guy running towards the woman could be mistaken for the other guy who had already walked up to her and was stabbing her to death. Was the jury mobbing the courtroom floor along with the gallery? Was the officer at a weird angle and the sun was in his eyes or something? Does that yonk still have a job?

ckfahrenheit said @ 6:26am GMT on 9th Jul
stuff that happens, when written in journalese, often makes less sense than actual events

PottyMouth said @ 4:44pm GMT on 9th Jul
I have a degree in Journalism (which helps me zilch as a professional musician), and I gotta say, this is just bad writing, but not something symptomatic of journalism as a whole.

Dalej said @ 5:22am GMT on 9th Jul
If only europeyans would rage like that every time an europeyan is being killed in an islamic country.

But that would be racist wouldn't it, so they don't.

wieder said @ 5:44am GMT on 9th Jul
I agree to an extent...

An Egyptian blogger Hicham Maged, wrote "let us play the 'What If' game."

"Just imagine if the situation was reversed and the victim was a Westerner who was stabbed anywhere in the world or _ God forbid _ in any Middle Eastern country by Muslim extremists," he said.

Uhhh.... well... see... hello Mr. Maged?

GehnRahl said @ 7:32am GMT on 9th Jul
There is a bit of a double standard here. Imagine if you had throngs of Germans in the streets calling for blood from when this type of stuff happens. A german killed in a muslim country? Beheaded? If there was the same level of reaction, i'm sure the racism card would be called. Personally, i'd be more scared shitless that you pissed off Germany.

themanwhoeatslettus said @ 8:13am GMT on 9th Jul
in European country's there are demonstrations held almost every weekend about something or another. While in Germany there was a Neo-Nazi rally of Maybe 5000 people on a Saturday. On Sunday there were 20-30,000 people who marched in Cologne (and more in Berlin and Frankfurt) against the Neo-Nazi. it was barely mentioned in the paper, a blurb on the Radio "perhaps 5000 Nazi and a larger counter demonstration happened the weekend." Quickly followed by "Football this weekend" lasting 45min where 3 fans were killed.

in many Muslim country's a riot had better have a good reason because people are going to get shot and hit and gassed.

the people of Egypt have the right to be angry over this. but so would anyone who was in a similar situation.

willrogers said @ 10:39am GMT on 9th Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
Yeah, but there seem to be confirmation biases on both sides.

The "Islamophobes" ignore all the Muslims not supporting terrorism and living peaceful lives all around the world and the reactionary Muslims ignore all the Westerners being peaceful and not being at all involved in Middle East affairs or other Muslim interests and lives.

It understandable, but not condonable, because it's the information and images that inspire fear that are most visceral and memorable. It's a survival instinct that we should temper with science, statistics and rationalism.

danshyu said @ 5:22am GMT on 9th Jul
"The Egyptian pharmacists' syndicate said it is considering a week-long boycott of German medicines."

....Serious?

Shirobake said @ 5:34am GMT on 9th Jul
She was an Egyptian pharmacist living in Germany. It's meant to be symbolic, not necessarily effective in anything.

devilsad said @ 5:17pm GMT on 9th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
So you could say it's just a placebo protest.

themanwhoeatslettus said @ 8:23am GMT on 9th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
i am going to boycott "Egyptian Pharmacists Syndicate" and get my insulin...i mean Viagra this week from a Lebanon man who sells falafel on the week end.

He gives me free hummas every time because i know the difference between Lebanon and Israel and how they make hummas. (there is not really a difference but he thinks there is and i am not about to stop getting free fucking hummas)

RhesusMonkey said @ 12:35pm GMT on 9th Jul
perhaps you should call your next album that... "Hummus"

kichijoii said @ 5:31am GMT on 9th Jul
um 18 stabs is a lot

and the guard still shot the wrong man

real life is so hard to believe sometimes

Naruki said @ 6:27am GMT on 9th Jul
If only the rest of the people had had a gun! Certainly they could have done better than a trained professional.

Er, wait, what exactly is the NRA's talking point on this issue again? I think there's some kind of self-contradiction here...

symmetrian said @ 6:35am GMT on 9th Jul
Germany.

symmetrian said @ 6:59am GMT on 9th Jul
To clarify, not the "N" that the "N" in "N.R.A." stands for.

EPT said @ 12:39pm GMT on 9th Jul
To clarify, the NRA loves anecdotes from other countries, unless they're unfavourable.

symmetrian said @ 3:38pm GMT on 9th Jul
Fair enough.

It's really too bad they weren't more strict about guns in this case. Maybe the assailant wouldn't have been able to stab a woman to death if he wasn't able to have a... um. gun.

danshyu said @ 6:42am GMT on 9th Jul
Wouldn't have helped. They don't allow firearms to be carried in courts by general public even in the most firearm liberal states in America. Everybody are screened for weapon before entering.

Actually that's what they should've done...

djlotus said @ 6:06am GMT on 9th Jul
Wow.

Jack-a-bout said @ 6:07am GMT on 9th Jul
Yeah, that's sad, I guess.

But did you hear that Michael Jackson died?

ckfahrenheit said @ 7:24am GMT on 9th Jul
Michael Jackson fucked up the morning traffic in LA county that day, then for seven fucking hours any REAL news was drowned out for live coverage of this lushy mammaryorial to a race-changing, baby-dangling whackjob who thought a hostile-takeover of McCartney was a stroke of genius. Fuck him and his lottery-picked brainwashed flock of toady mourners. Worthless. It's possible to fap to Farrah, but can you fap to Michael Jackson? FUCK NO, are you SERIOUS? Even if you're GAY you can't fap to Michael Jackson; you'll piss asparagus-urine instead of cumming. Farrah never once thought "you know I bet anal cancer doesn't happen to Michael Jackson." When David Carradine passed out for good during his last orgasm, he sure as hell wasn't fantasizing about strangling Michael Jackson. Ed McMahon would rather blow Billy Mays than fap to Michael Jackson. Fucking worthless.

themanwhoeatslettus said @ 8:28am GMT on 9th Jul
i am straight and i would rather have given a BJ Ed McMahon, David Carradine, or Billy Mays than fap to MJ.

i would not mind seeing Farrah with a strap on and rape MJ.

maryyugo said @ 8:51pm GMT on 9th Jul
interesting rant. did you skip your morning coffee? your risperidone?

devilsad said @ 5:19pm GMT on 9th Jul
Yeah.

It was about 20 years ago.

Navier-Strokes said @ 6:25am GMT on 9th Jul
I would like to see a picture of the attacker and the husband,
just for comparison to see how similar they look.
Also, how soon after the attacker went after the wife
did the security guard shoot?
If it was seconds in, I could see how he could make a mistake,
but then would come the question, how did the attacker make it to 18 stabs?

Clearly, the guard needs to
1) be fired
2) have his background checked for connections to the assailant

If no justification can be found for why he shot the husband,
the guard should also be put in trial for attempted manslaughter.

ckfahrenheit said @ 6:39am GMT on 9th Jul
I just read the other article, and there's a claim that security instinctively shot the non-blond person.

18 wounds: that's possible if you count superficial cuts as "stabs" and if he was slashing like a dervish for a few seconds. He apparently got the husband once too.

Then I read that the Egyptian so-called mourners are chanting:
There is no god but God and the Germans are the enemies of God
...Not blaming the person actually holding the knife. You know what; fuck those idiots.

EPT said @ 12:41pm GMT on 9th Jul
If no justification can be found for why he shot the husband,

maybe he wanted them to be in heaven together?

germanjulian said @ 6:57am GMT on 9th Jul
-1 for stupid title as this has nothing to do with "german style"

also the police officer did not shoot the wrong guy because he could not identify the person but because aiming is hard when 3 people are next to each other or more on top of each other.
And why did the attacker have a knife on him.... simple out of THOUSANDS of small court cases every month in germany this kind of thing happened twice in the last 7 month and NEVER before (thats where there is a debate now). German is a pretty safe place and we do not have "gun control" in schools or need "weapon control" in courts.
Also the article your linking to is not 100% accurate especially as it sounds like the police officer shot the wrong man because he is stupid. I blame "lost in translation".

Naruki said @ 7:17am GMT on 9th Jul

-1 for stupid title as this has nothing to do with "german style"

Yeah, there was no mention of cannibalistic suicide at all!

Stratafyre said @ 7:24am GMT on 9th Jul
Yeah, well, the rest of the world always likes to point and laugh when stuff happens in America. We're just pointing and laughing back.

Shirobake said @ 7:27am GMT on 9th Jul
You'll note that I didn't put "Epic German Fail", or otherwise attempt to indict the country. No need to get so defensive.

I appreciate the explanation, but unless you were there, or can provide better sources, you can hardly blame me for posting what I could find.

germanjulian said @ 7:34am GMT on 9th Jul
hey Shirobake...

Epic Fail, German Style

that was your original post title.

Shirobake said @ 7:36am GMT on 9th Jul
Hey, yeah- and that doesn't mean the entire country failed, or the people failed. It meant "an epic fail happened in Germany".

Shirobake said @ 7:38am GMT on 9th Jul [Score:1 WTF]
And you'll note that I specifically changed it because you found it so offensive. Because I'm a sensitive fucking person.

Shirobake said @ 7:35am GMT on 9th Jul
Also, I personally never said anything about gun or weapons control, never said I didn't understand how the guard could make a mistake, never even blamed him. If that's how the articles sounded to you, that's too bad- but they didn't explicitly state such a thing, and it certainly wasn't what I got out of it.

willrogers said @ 7:29am GMT on 9th Jul
But why not have "weapon control" in court houses?

People get pretty angry about legal stuff and could direct their anger at a number of different people involved, from judges to lawyers to juries, etc.

Beginning in 1967 with a study by Berkowitz & LePage, research has found that the mere presence of weapons increases aggression and aggressive thoughts, so shouldn't you keep weapons out of an implicitly emotionally volatile situation like a courtroom?

papango said @ 7:35am GMT on 9th Jul
Ideally, you'd have screening at every court, but it is expensive and often if budgets are tight it can be hard to justify given that the most dangerous people are often in custody, there are plenty of police at court, the low incidents of violence with weapons (against unarmed people just going at each other or people using chairs, water pitchers and anything else that comes to hand), and the fact that most people going in and out of a courthouse are just there to transact business (filing documents, paying fines, working) and are not part of criminal trials.

willrogers said @ 7:44am GMT on 9th Jul
I wasn't just talking about criminal trials. Many other kinds of legal business are emotionally rousing, too.

From divorces and custody hearings to civil suits to tax issues, people can get very emotional and sometimes angry about legal issues and can project that anger onto people related to the law and their case, from the judge overseeing their case to the lawyers on either side.

Even if a person doesn't have a current case or issue, they may be motivated to commit violence upon someone at the courthouse who they feel wronged them in the past or will wrong them in the near future.

papango said @ 8:05am GMT on 9th Jul
For things like Family Court, which is more a mediation here, I think a screening of everybody would just make things more stressful. These can be stressful, but if you look at the numbers of people who go in and out of courts everyday the amount of people attacking others isn't high. Obviously, the fact that many people do not chose to be in a court, and they often don't get to decide when they'll be in court means that security should be good.

willrogers said @ 8:35am GMT on 9th Jul
I'm not saying that patting down people going into courthouses is practical, just that it is short-sighted for someone like germanjulian to categorically claim that "weapons control" isn't something necessary for a courthouse, without addressing the feasibility.

EPT said @ 12:44pm GMT on 9th Jul
Family court needs more screening, not less. People really lose their faculties in separations.

sanepride said @ 3:08pm GMT on 9th Jul
Security procedures in public places are usually a reactive response to a specific perceived threat. The US is a society well known for rampant gun violence, hence the need for weapons screening at court houses and other public places. Actual incidents of violence have made this a necessity. In German society obviously the threat has not obviated the need, people are not generally armed and probably overall better behaved. Maybe procedures will change as a result of this incident, shocking as it is though it's up to their societal standards whether an horrible but isolated event warrants the expense and reduction in accessibility that comes with tightened security.

maryyugo said @ 8:50pm GMT on 9th Jul
courts are places for high emotions. they should be affirmatively protected against the bringing of any sort of weapon by anyone other than law enforcement officials.

themanwhoeatslettus said @ 7:25am GMT on 9th Jul [Score:2]
i disagree about the title.

if it was american it would be given the title "Stupid American style"
the article speaks of the undertone of problems starting (in a more current era) with the leitkoulture and immigration. Germany wanting to be an open country but not sure how they feel with 1/5th of their population being Turkish/Muslim. Germany has a bad track record of ethnic segregation and they want to be seen as open. the mosque in Cologne is a tough sell to many Germans as it is know as the cathedral city. Most germans are open to the idea of it but there is still a tension between 2 worlds that are learning to get along.

This is a sad story and the fact that he killed the woman and the husband got killed by the security guard. i used to work in a state building where i was a security guard and it was a tough thing. September 11th happened and everyone went crazy with security and 2 state employees were raped during a search. the metal detectors went into the attic and then the security company i worked for was hired the old one was fired. The 5 weeks i worked there i had 6 issues where i had to draw my gun because there was gun/knife were about to be used on me or someone else.

it is a sad point that the security guard killed the wrong person but i can understand how someone could get by security with a knife.

Shirobake said @ 7:31am GMT on 9th Jul
oops. Think you were replying below, and my mod screwed ya up :S

wieder said @ 7:58am GMT on 9th Jul
I don't think you should be able to understand how a defendant in the case could get by security with a knife.

It would be one thing if it was someone who had shown up to watch, but the entire point of this trial was due to him threatening and exhibiting his racism and hate towards her specifically.

themanwhoeatslettus said @ 8:03am GMT on 9th Jul
unless i read it wrong the Russian was appealing aginst the virdict and being sued and was not someone having come to the court room in hand cuffs under police watch.

wieder said @ 8:46am GMT on 9th Jul
WTF is it about this place recently making shit up and then pretending like I said them.

I didn't say anything about being in hand cuffs or under police watch.

However very basic security screening (pat down, metal detector, etc) for defendants is standard. Hell it's standard for anyone in the court room but particularly the people involved in them.

I had to have my backpack searched when I went to defend against a speeding ticket.

willrogers said @ 9:21am GMT on 9th Jul
He wasn't a defendent.

It wasn't a criminal trial, it was a appellate hearing where he is a "petitioner," not a criminal defendant.

He was already found guilty of whatever "speech crime" against her and was punished with a fine.

This courtroom appearance was to appeal that judgment.

That said, I do agree that there should be much more security in all courthouses because of the significance and emotional nature of the proceedings.

themanwhoeatslettus said @ 8:32pm GMT on 9th Jul
and the entire reason told about working in a place where there was lessened security was that people got thru with guns and knives. i was just recently in Germany (june 9-22) and there are many places where they were very lax with security that in America would be strange. the state building where i worked there had been state employees raped with the pretense of "Pat Down" screening. the state fired the company people went to jail and metal detectors were in the attic. there was no front door security and i quickly (6 weeks) left the job because there would be stupid fuckers come in with either a gun or a knife to threaten Social worker to get more money or get back at an ATF officer.
i agree most places you would get patted down (it happened to me last week at a baseball game) but i can also see some one getting thru with a knife.

maryyugo said @ 8:52pm GMT on 9th Jul
"getting through" and nobody trying to prevent a knife in the courtroom are two different issues.

themanwhoeatslettus said @ 2:46am GMT on 10th Jul
i completely agree, as i don't know everything around the situation. i am expressing it can happen easily. While in Germany i went to a museum that was just open and no security because they just did not worry the same way about someone damaging it. i could have pissed all over paintings and thrown shit at then i might have gotten taken down (and by a local German) but only after i ruined them. last week i went and saw an MC Esher Print collection and i got a little to close behind glass and was told in no uncertain terms that i needed move away or i would be trespassing and eating pavement.

EPT said @ 3:36am GMT on 10th Jul [Score:1 Informative]
A couple of days ago I went to the Guggenheim just 'cause. Unfortunately the exhibition was Frank Lloyd Wright, which meant shitloads of blueprints, but there was an occasional model of his more pie-in-the-sky schemes. And with every model, there was a security guard to tell people to back off.

I wondered if any of these guards realised their jobs could be taken by a plexiglass box.

willrogers said @ 7:38am GMT on 9th Jul
The attacker was initially fined for just insulting the victim and her son with epithets against Muslims.

Doesn't that indicate that Germany DOES care about how Muslims are treated and the government isn't discriminatory or phobic towards them?

I think the Egyptians and Muslims that are outraged and protesting about the victim being Muslim is completely unwarranted.

Her religion had nothing to do with it other than the attacker being a fucking bigot towards Muslims. It was just one bigot attacking a person in court, not part of some program to discriminate against Muslims or harm them. It was a murder in a courtroom and was appropriately reported that way.

And yeah, it would have been reported the same way had she and her family been Jewish. There was no racism or bigotry going on here other than in the mind and actions of the attacker.

Fuck him.

Shirobake said @ 7:44am GMT on 9th Jul
I agree, and it mentions that there are indeed Muslims who see those who are fanning the flames for what they are. Using the West as a scapegoat isn't exactly new to the Muslim world, and if you're expecting their leaders to have any shame any time soon, consider how they generally treat their people.

willrogers said @ 7:53am GMT on 9th Jul
I feel very bad for the victim and her family, but am I the only person here that thinks it was total bullshit that this asshole was fined in the first place just for saying bigoted shit?

Maybe it's just the American in me, but I kind of feel like you should be able to say whatever you want, no matter how stupid, as long as it isn't stuff like orders to harm another person or something like deceptively shouting "Fire!" in a crowded place.

wieder said @ 7:59am GMT on 9th Jul
Calling someone a "terrorist" should definitely be worthy of a fine, yes. It's the personal label equivalent of shouting fire. How is it *not* deceptive?

Shirobake said @ 8:07am GMT on 9th Jul
True. One harkens back to McCarthyism. Calling someone a terrorist in the wake of 9/11 was almost as potentially dangerous as accusing someone of being a communist back then. What about calling someone a child molestor/rapist/etc? Hell, in some parts of the country, I'd imagine you could still get hurt if you were accused of being gay. If only in the court of public opinion alone, even words can be dangerous.

willrogers said @ 8:33am GMT on 9th Jul
The difference is that this guy was basically just calling her names to her and her kid, not for the benefit of anyone else.

It doesn't seem that his intent was to deceive other people into believing she was really a terrorist and thereby endangering her or her child. Nor does it seem like his deception was intended as part of some plan to alienate or discriminate against her, as in labeling someone a communist in the McCarthy Era.

He was basically doing the same thing as a racist white person saying that all black people are criminals or that Jews are greedy and control the banks, he was making a generalization about people of her religious group.

Where it would not be protected by the 1st Amendment would be if he knew that saying these things to her would cause others to believe them and commit crimes against her for it, especially if he knew it was a deception on his part.

wieder said @ 8:49am GMT on 9th Jul
You are mistaken.

If you don't believe that verbally calling someone a terrorist is slander, then I'll just have to shrug and move on.

willrogers said @ 9:15am GMT on 9th Jul
No, I'm not.

Firstly, slander is not a crime, it's a civil infraction, which is why you are sued by the "victim" of the slander, not prosecuted by the proper authorities.

Secondly, slander requires a knowingly false statement about that individual. I have to know for a fact that what I'm saying is completely untrue and will harm you. One could argue that this man was not guilty of slander because he did not individually know this woman but made the (faulty) deductive reasoning of:

Some Muslims are terrorists
This woman is a Muslim
Therefore she is likely a terrorist

It's bad not logic, but not criminal and not necessarily slander.

Thirdly, he wasn't really making a statement to harm her as an individual, he was basically making a generalization about all Muslims. What he did was the same thing as a Muslim calling a Jew a murderer because the Israeli-Palestinian situation. This asshole felt like all Muslims were complicit in the acts of terrorism committed by a small few just as this hypothetical Muslim feels that all Jews are complicit in the deaths of Palestinians.

It's bigotry, but not slander, and would be protected under the 1st Amendment in the US.

papango said @ 9:27am GMT on 9th Jul
But this happened in German, and there the rules about speech are different. Particularly around racist or insulting speech (hate speech). Hate speech is defined as "utterances which tend to insult, intimidate or harass a person or groups or utterances capable of instigating violence, hatred or discrimination" and it is criminal in that jurisdiction. "Insult will be punished by imprisonment not exceeding one year or by a fine…."

willrogers said @ 10:30am GMT on 9th Jul
Yeah, I was really only speaking as to US law, as I have very little knowledge of German law.

But more importantly, hate speech criminalization is such fucking bullshit and is antithetical to the 1st Amendment and anyone who values free speech.

The whole point of protecting free speech is to protect minority speech that people want to censor. You don't need the protections for popular speech that most people are in favor of. What many people forget is that the 1st Amendment is blind, it makes no value judgments about the speech, moral or otherwise, it's just supposed to prevent people from being silenced.

This is why the ACLU is fucking awesome. The ACLU realizes that you have protect the 1st Amendment for everyone, even bigots, especially when you disagree with them. They really take to heart the quote misattributed to Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That's why a Jewish ACLU lawyer represented the Nazis in the Skokie March case.

papango said @ 10:36am GMT on 9th Jul
The Germans did go through a period dominated by racial atrocities. Their view of what is and is not acceptable to society may have been coloured by this. I personally feel that you should be able to say what you like, but once you're screaming that into the face of a young mother in a park, you've crossed a line.

willrogers said @ 10:50am GMT on 9th Jul
What happened in Germany should make them empathetic, not reactionary. Hate speech legislation discriminates just as much, it just doesn't target an easily identifiable group, it targets the individual, which is everyone.

And why should the woman's age, gender or parental status have any bearing on where the "line" is? Why should the volume of the man's voice have anything to with it?

What if it was the other way around and it was a father with a kid insulted by a woman? Or what about two adults whose genders you are ignorant of?

No offense, but I think you are thinking too emotionally about this and placing too much emphasis on stuff like gender and parental status in your judgment of the situation.

Once you start making exceptions to free speech based on such categories of those involved or, more generally, your emotional reaction to the incident, you are violating the spirit of free speech.

The "line" should be objective and only judge the veracity of the claims, the mental state of the speaker as to those claims, the intent/negligence involved, etc.

This is why people like the Church of Scientology files its libel and slander suits in Europe (mainly England), the threshold for slander and libel are lower and the burden of proof on the complainant is lower.

papango said @ 10:57am GMT on 9th Jul
I don't really consider this a 'speech' issue. What he was saying isn't, to me, as important as how he was saying it. And yes, I would feel the same way if a small angry women were screaming in the face of a looming giant of a man, but the German courts might not since they consider intimidation and harrassment when they look at cases like this. If I make racist remarks to a person that is one thing, if I shout pleasantries into that person's face, that is another. If I go out onto my balcony and shout radnom letters at the top of my voice to my neighbours at four in the morning, I'll be arrested, I see this as similar.

Free speech, to me, protects content, it's not a license to harrass people.

willrogers said @ 11:42am GMT on 9th Jul
You are conflating several different things and trying to act like they are all issues of speech.

Shouting from your balcony in the early morning is not an issue of speech content but of disturbing the peace expected at that given time in the morning.

How is it harassment if she approached him and spoke to him first?

He made no overages to her until she engaged him. How could it be harassment if she asked him a question and he responded with something she found offensive? She asked for a response but did not like the answer.

There is no right to not be offended, which is essentially what her complaint boiled down to. She engaged him first.

So what is your objection really, the content of his speech or the way he said it?

If the former, why should he not be able to say some stupid bigoted shit? Who gets to decide which language is allowable and which isn't? You?

If the latter, why should the intonation, decibel level, inflection or any other auditory attribute of speech make a given speech unprotected? What if he responded with unoffensive language but said it in the same way? Should that also be unprotected?

The guy harassed no one and his speech should be protected. I may be wrong, but the impression I get from your arguments is that you were offended by what he said and that is the basis for your argument.

EPT said @ 1:16pm GMT on 9th Jul
According to numerous interviews in Egyptian local papers with el-Sherbini family, the man who stabbed al-Sherbini used to accuse her of being a "terrorist," and in one incident, he tried to take off her head scarf.

Yep, you're right. This was a one-off issue where she engaged him. There's no evidence of harassment at all.

If the former, why should he not be able to say some stupid bigoted shit? Who gets to decide which language is allowable and which isn't? You?

Heh, funny. I'm in the US at the moment and speech is far from free here. I have to heavily modify the way I speak in public to avoid issues. I can't help but notice how little swearing is allowed on TV or in adverts, and the FCC has quite happily asserted it's power over what can and can't be said on the airwaves. In my personal experience, I am less free to speak in the US than I am back home.

While the US has a legal provision for free speech (though the FCC laughs at that), and we don't, in real terms I'm freer to speak back home than here. In my experience it's mostly been around swearing, but there are taboo subjects here as well.

EPT said @ 1:22pm GMT on 9th Jul
Well, not far from free, that was a bit of hyperbole, but it's not the lonely bastion of free speech that US free speech advocates like to make it out as.

papango said @ 8:52pm GMT on 9th Jul
No, my point is that this isn't an issue of speech. He has a right to be offensive, but that doesn't give him the right to scream abuse into a persons face. And as EPT points out, this wasn't a one off event.

"What if he responded with unoffensive language but said it in the same way?" I did mention that in my comment - I consider it as bad, because, as I said, to me this isn't about speech. It's not about what was being said but the incident as a whole.

"Who gets to decide which language is allowable and which isn't? " In this case German gets to decide - it's a country that is different to America and has different laws (shocking I know). The considerations that go into that decision and a lot of background is in the link in a previous comment. You're bringing a lot of America legal and rights ideas in that just don't bear on this. I'm not American, so I'm not going to get into that side of it with ouy. The Germans chose not to protect all speech, they are allowed to do that.

I'm not offended by what he said because I don't think he was really saying anything. He was just shouting mindless bullshit and grabbing at her headscarf. I'd be horrified if he'd been fined for having an anti-Muslim website, or talking with his friends or even for starting an anti-Muslim group.

I don't think 'Well she went up to him so however he behaved is therefore fine' holds much water.

You seem to have taken the view that any incident that involves words must be a free speech issue and anyone who opposses you must be emotional and irrational. I disagree.

wieder said @ 9:33am GMT on 9th Jul
Terrorism is of the public interest, which is what makes labeling someone a terrorist a matter of public interest, which is what makes it slander.

Not only is the logical presentation you presented bad (as you said) but it fails immediately in any sort of defense because

Some men are terrorists
You are a man
Therefore you are likely a terrorist

etc... it holds no water. You have to prove that the statement is true OR opinion for it to be not slander... and as that is not a statement of opinion and can not be construed as opinion, then the burden is on him to prove she is a terrorist.

Then beyond that, it may be that Germany or wherever they are have tort for other forms of verbal attacks... which even the US has. Even if you can say someone is a bitch, you can not follow them around day in and day out repeatedly saying it, or repeatedly mailing them letters saying it, etc. There are limits to the level of expression.

willrogers said @ 10:01am GMT on 9th Jul
Firstly, treason is also a matter of public interest and I can call Dick Cheney a traitor with absolutely no evidence other than my belief and it's still not slander.

Secondly, he doesn't have to prove she's a terrorist. All he has to do is say that Muslims have be responsible for terrorism around the world and he believes all Muslims are complicit in such acts. It is a statement of opinion. He may be objectively wrong in his judgment, but it only matters what he believed at the time.

He called her a "terrorist" AND an "Islamist whore." His argument was that her being a Muslim makes her complicit in the "Islamist" movement, which makes her complicit in the acts of terrorism committed by Muslims. These are his beliefs generated from his idiot logic, but that doesn't mean they aren't his beliefs and that it makes what he said slander. He also doesn't have to prove that she is actually a prostitute, it was just another insult.

All this asshole would have to do is go to court and say what I've said here and he's likely off the hook barring a jury and/or judge ignoring the law.

If you'd like me to cite precedent, there's Brandenburg v. Ohio which affirmed that inflammatory comments or insults, even those advocating violence, are protected speech unless there is the threat of imminent illegal actions, e.g. illegal violence.

Thirdly, I have no idea what you are talking about with that last paragraph. What you are describing isn't slander at all, it's harassment and possibly stalking, neither of which this asshole did.

The victim approached the guy near a swingset and asked him if her son could use it, which is when he said that stupid shit. He did not follow her at all. The incident seems to have ended when one of them left the site of his tirade and then the victim called the cops on him. No stalking involved.

wieder said @ 11:05am GMT on 9th Jul
You have no concept of degrees.

Not all speech is equal.

willrogers said @ 12:08pm GMT on 9th Jul
Cite it or shut the fuck up.

Brandenburg v. Ohio and the Skokie, IL Nazi marching cases (among many others) clearly illustrate my argument that hate speech and even violence-advocating speech are protected.

Skokie town officials were unable to keep the Nazis out of their town for the speech the Nazis were making so they resorted to other measures like requiring special permits, banning swastikas, and other end-runs around the first amendment.

You have failed to cite a single actual case where there has been a verdict or judgment to support your argument.

You have no concept of debate.

maryyugo said @ 8:54pm GMT on 9th Jul
i'm sure you're correct for the us. however none of your examples are necesarily valid in another country. many countries have a more conservative view of slander and libel and are not as enthusiastic as the us about excluding public figures (refering to your cheney example).

Naruki said @ 11:27am GMT on 9th Jul
Firstly, treason is also a matter of public interest and I can call Dick Cheney a traitor with absolutely no evidence other than my belief and it's still not slander.

That's only true if a "reasonable person" would not tend to believe you. If they would, then you could indeed be guilty of slander. It really depends on the weight of your particular credibility.

willrogers said @ 11:58am GMT on 9th Jul
Which is exactly my point with this case.

Weider cited a link specifically addressing this and my point is that nowhere in the article does it mention that this guy has any special knowledge about Muslims or terrorists that would give him greater than laymen credibility on the subject AND he never met the woman before so he couldn't have personal knowledge of her to confirm or deny his assertion.

This is why a reasonable person would not reasonably believe that he had just identified a real Islamic terrorist, especially with his second insult of her as an "Islamist whore."

Putting those two insults together forms his argument that she is a terrorist not because she actually killed someone or commit another terrorist act herself, but that her membership as a Muslim means to him that she is complicit in the Islamist agenda and is there fore guilty by association at least of the terrorist acts attributed to Muslims.

EPT said @ 1:29pm GMT on 9th Jul
he never met the woman before so he couldn't have personal knowledge of her to confirm or deny his assertion.

RTFA next time, eh?

EPT said @ 12:59pm GMT on 9th Jul
Secondly, slander requires a knowingly false statement about that individual.
Tomorrow's headlines: willrogers rapes kiddies.

Hey, we don't know for a fact that he doesn't, so it's not slander. We don't keep tabs on him 24/7, he could be using that time to hunt them out and rape them in a forest shack.

skoob666 said @ 8:09am GMT on 9th Jul
I'm sorry but baselessly calling someone ANYTHING is not the same as deceiving people into a false panic. I could call you the fucking pope but if someone starts worshiping you and making you fancy canes it's on them.

wieder said @ 8:47am GMT on 9th Jul
You are mistaken.

willrogers said @ 9:17am GMT on 9th Jul
Again, you really don't understand what you are talking about.

Slander and libel are civil COMPLAINTS not criminal indictments.

In the court room where the murder took place, the bigot was appealing the criminal penalty levied against him by the state.

This is very distinct from a judgment found against a person in a civil suit for slander or libel.

wieder said @ 9:27am GMT on 9th Jul
Ahhh, yes my error in the technical point you were making... I agree that the state should not be able to levy a fine automatically.

However, I do think that if someone calls someone a terrorist, and it can be proven that said person is *not* a terrorist, that they should win the suit (and judgement).

willrogers said @ 9:43am GMT on 9th Jul
Again, you are not really understanding what slander and libel are about.

It's not just about if you can objectively prove that what someone said is false, there is more context to it than that.

In order to get a slander/libel judgment, you have to prove that the defendant knew at the time that what he said or wrote was factually wrong.

You also have to prove that it was intended to cause harm or was gross negligence and not just a mistake, hyperbole, etc.

You also have to prove that the person was asserting what they said or wrote as fact and not their belief or opinion. Just because the guy didn't preface his bigotry with "In my opinion..." or "I believe..." doesn't mean that what he said was an intent to assert a fact.

wieder said @ 9:56am GMT on 9th Jul
:(

I'm guessing you haven't actually been *involved* in a slander suit.

The sort of arguments you are making are highly subjective based on the sort of accusation made.... with "bitch" being in one category and "terrorist" being in another.

More?

willrogers said @ 10:14am GMT on 9th Jul
Do you even read the stuff you link to?

"Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff."

According to what you lined, you'd have to prove that:
1. He knew for a fact she was not a terrorist or somehow supported their actions in some way, and his belief seems to be that every Muslim is complicit by just being a Muslim.

2. There was a third party he intentionally communicated these insults to:

3. That it's public interest, which is vague, because he made insults to one person with no intent of publicizing them to others AND that it's negligence. Negligence would require that there was some foreseeable consequence of him insulting her beyond her hearing it and being offended.

4. That damage occurred.

And
"A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation. "

He just met her, so how could he definitively know she was a terrorist or not and therefore how could any 3rd party believe him as a reliable source for factual info about terrorists AND this woman?

And even if he was in a jurisdiction where a factual basis of his insults could support her complaint, she'd have to prove that it was a factual basis rather than his opinion about the current state of religion and politics. His factual basis for his arguments would then be all the instances of terrorism performed by Muslims and the religious and cultural support they receive.

wieder said @ 11:15am GMT on 9th Jul
You quoted the part that *I KNOW FOR A FACT* defeats what you are trying to assert:

"Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation."

Perhaps you are in a jurisdiction where that hasn't become an aspect of the decision making process, and if so then enjoy!

willrogers said @ 11:31am GMT on 9th Jul
No it doesn't, which is why I fucking commented on it, maybe you should read my last two sentences.

As I said, even if you were in a jurisdiction with the factual basis of opinion allowance, you'd still have to prove that he was making a factual basis in the first place rather than being solely opinion or belief.

I also said that even if that burden was met, this supposedly "factual based" opinion is supported by actual events of Islamic terrorism and the responses from Muslims and Muslim countries and leaders. It would then come down to the reasonableness of generalizing those facts to a person belonging to that group (Muslims), which isn't completely irrational if all he knows about the person it that they belong ot that group.

wieder said @ 11:35am GMT on 9th Jul
Again, best of luck with that view.

White Protestant Males are responsible for more terrorist activity on US soil and against US citizens than Muslims.

willrogers said @ 12:02pm GMT on 9th Jul
9/11 was committed by Muslim terrorists.
The London tube bombings were committed by Muslim terrorists
The USS Cole was bombed by Muslim terrorists
The US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim terrorists.
Muslim terrorists commit suicide bombings and rocket attacks on Israel

I'm pretty sure that this is enough factual evidence that substantial terrorism has been committed by Muslims and meets the burden for supporting his OPINIONS.

EPT said @ 1:28pm GMT on 9th Jul
"Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff."

From what you quoted above, the false and defamatory statements just have to be false and defamatory, not knowingly incorrect. There's nothing in that first line that remotely links to belief or opinion. Or in any of the lines.

wieder said @ 11:38am GMT on 9th Jul
It's 4:30 am, so bedtime.

willrogers said @ 10:20am GMT on 9th Jul
And yeah, they are subjective because that's the whole point.

It's not just about damage done, it's about the reasonableness of the statement in light of the speaker's state of mind and the intent and/or negligence therein.

There is no set standard where you call someone a terrorist and it automatically makes you guilty of slander. That's not how it works and is why we actually have trials for it here and why it is only a civil complaint, rather than being a criminal infraction like in some countries.

And no, I've never been involved in a slander suit because I'm not childish enough to sue when my feelings get hurt and have never been the victim of real slander. I also make sure that my insults are either factually based or are my opinions/beliefs.

wieder said @ 11:11am GMT on 9th Jul
You don't have to be the one doing the insulting or being insulted to wind up in a slander suit.

I already agreed that it's a civil matter... and while it's certainly true that there is no set standard (a 6 year old calling a fellow 6 year old is going to be disregarded), your have a personal interpretation and I welcome you to continue to maintain that interpretation. Best of luck with it.

willrogers said @ 11:26am GMT on 9th Jul
It's not a personal interpretation, it's fucking SCOTUS case law.

The fighting words doctrine was probably the most expansive extension of 1st amendment restrictions, especially with slander and libel, but it was largely discounted in Brandenburg v. Ohio and other SCOTUS cases.

If a KKK member can assert "revengence" against blacks and Jews, I think someone can assert that Muslims are complicit in Islamic terrorism without much problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How exactly would you be either complainant or defendant in a slander suit if you weren't the one insulting or being insulted? That makes no sense.

You are not responsible if you are the medium of the slander or libel, like the Post Office.

wieder said @ 11:29am GMT on 9th Jul
How exactly? Seriously?

You can be a witness, a legal aid, a lawyer, a jury member, a baliff, simply GOING to a trial you are aware of, etc. Now I'm significantly less inclined to believe you are genuinely giving this discussion any serious thought.

willrogers said @ 11:53am GMT on 9th Jul
You said "You don't have to be the one doing the insulting or being insulted to wind up in a slander suit," which is more of your vague bullshit.

If you meant any of those third parties that aren't actually "in" the suit then you should have mentioned it and none of those vicariously involved parties are legally impacted by the suit, only the complainant and defendant are.

Are you seriously arguing that the fucking baliff is involved in the cases before the court he serves in?

Now who's not giving the discussion serious thought?

wieder said @ 6:21pm GMT on 9th Jul
I apologize for the vagueness of the language. I assumed it was tragically obvious that if you are in the courtroom listening to the arguments and hearing the verdict, that you have "wound up in" a slander suit in terms of having the information necessary to be capable of understanding the arguments and verdict. It's not like only the lawyers, jury, plantiff, and defendant are allowed knowledge of the case.

Yes I consider the baliff involved in the case because he is likely there watching it from start to finish, including the arguments and the final verdict.

symmetrian said @ 6:25pm GMT on 9th Jul
Everywhere I go
I get slandered, libeled!
I hear words I never heard in the bible.

willrogers said @ 10:33am GMT on 9th Jul
Can you stop posting links of texts without using them in an actual argument?

It's your job to use the information from the text in your own argument, not post a link and expect everyone else to deduce the argument you are making from it.

If you think the text has information disproving what one of us has said, specifically mention that information with a paraphrasing or quoting of that information and explain what it is disproving and how it does so.

Otherwise you are just being lazy.

wieder said @ 11:04am GMT on 9th Jul
I've reached the limit of what I feel comfortable getting into. All I can legally say at this point (since my username is hardly anonymous)... is that I challenge you to try calling a muslim that you don't know a terrorist and discover the outcome.

I have provided as much as I possibly can, your personal *interpretation* supports your view, which is expected... but I know which way it will fall in a court of law in th United States.

Believe me, I started out sharing your on it... I was corrected.

willrogers said @ 11:15am GMT on 9th Jul
Reread the article.

He didn't just say "terrorist" and walk away.

He also called her an "Islamist whore."

His argument wasn't that she had personally killed anyone, but that her being a Muslim meant that she was complicit or potentially even supported the terrorist acts committed by Muslims, especially those in the name of Islam.

It's hardly slander to assert that you belief that another religion and it's adherents support terrorism or other forms of violence and other bad and/or illegal things.

wieder said @ 11:17am GMT on 9th Jul
Like I said, I wish you the best of luck holding that point of view.

willrogers said @ 11:19am GMT on 9th Jul
I want to separately address this sudden modesty or whatever you'd like to call it.

You can't just vaguely claim you have some kind of special knowledge or experience with this and cat like you've somehow won the argument.

That's fucking bullshit.

If you are so wise and knowledgeable about this know the "definitive" judgment for this issue were it to occur in the US, then detail it here, other wise shut the fuck up about all that cryptic "All I can legally say" bullshit. It's not a valid argument to use cryptic, unimpeachable vagueness as some kind of bulwark against criticism of your position.

wieder said @ 11:26am GMT on 9th Jul
I don't pretend it's enough to convince you. I've literally done what I can, but since you are not likely to go around calling muslims terrorists, and even if you were, it's not really my problem, I have no choice but to just step aside. You are free to call my vague assertions bullshit and that's absolutely fine. It's not modesty, it's simply recognition that slander is VERY VERY FUCKING VAGUE and highly subjective to the period in which the case is brought and the words in question.

It would be *awesome* if that were not the case, but the fact of the matter is in the US, the words Terrorist and Pedophile *do* carry the same gravity as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I can't get more specific, and I apologize for that, so feel free to dismiss. I'm not saying it makes me so right you must believe me... it's simply information transmission... you choose what you do or don't want to do with it and I'm completely comfortable with you dismissing it entirely.

willrogers said @ 11:47am GMT on 9th Jul
Again, you present this holy-than-thou attitude about this issue like I'm some ignorant redneck/bogan/etc. and you are somehow more enlightened but can't detail the information proving you right and my dismissals of your bullshit are somehow unwarranted.

And then you act like you've stopped arguing and divested yourself from the debate and then slip in another unsupported argument like,

"It would be *awesome* if that were not the case, but the fact of the matter is in the US, the words Terrorist and Pedophile *do* carry the same gravity as yelling fire in a crowded theater."

Cite case law supporting your reasoning as I did several times. Cite a case where some called another person a pedophile or terrorist and was found liable for libel or slander. It doesn't even have to be this cryptic (and likely bullshit) personal experience you claim to have.

cz85 said @ 4:29pm GMT on 9th Jul
You're reading more into what he said than what is actually said, I think its best for you to take a break and come back to this another day.

Shirobake said @ 8:02am GMT on 9th Jul
I generally agree, but in a sense I'm rather torn. I have similar feelings regarding the "Fairness Doctrine" over here. Does it lessen freedom of speech? Yes. Does it keep the national discourse from devolving to a point where millions of people take, say, right wing tripe at face value where they otherwise might not? I honestly can't say for certain, but sometimes I wonder.

At first I had thought her family had simply sued the guy for harrasment or something, which would have been more understandable.

Shirobake said @ 8:20am GMT on 9th Jul
(they are sueing him, mind you- but I was initially under the impression that was all this was about)

Jin said @ 4:22pm GMT on 9th Jul
"Germans are the enemies of God"

Lol,You sure got our number,Buddy!

KingPellinore said @ 5:38pm GMT on 9th Jul
Die Deutschen sind schlecht. Alle wir wissen das.

gunthar said @ 6:51pm GMT on 9th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
this is how batmen are made!

Mozart said @ 3:50am GMT on 10th Jul