Shoe in the face, he kinda deserved it!

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think that here it probably would be assault.

The story I initially read about this incident explained that in Iraq, turning the soles of one's shoes toward someone is a grave insult. Throwing the shoes at Bush was intended to be an extreme insult to him.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the prospect of Russian warships visiting Cuba, this also in today's news. I'm trying to imagine what message Putin is trying to send here.

I guess it depends on the definition of assault used in Iraq. Here it is the 'fear of bodily harm'. Bush would have to press charges (hence admitting he was fearful) in order for such a charge to stick here.

As for Russia, I fear they are getting quite desperate. They thought they were in a pretty strong position earlier this year and now find themselves right back where they were in the late 90's as oil and nat gas prices have plummetted. This may be a last ditch effort to try to exert or project power.

If oil prices don't rebound, their economy is in deep doo doo. Even worse than ours.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So, the fact that the crime of insulting the Iraqi state exists poses no conflict with the concept of freedom of speech as we understand it? Please. I'm not even going to dignify that tripe with a response.

And yes, it is cultural ignorance. Ignorance you apparently enjoy.

Again you twit... if the crime was for speaking out against Bush, then I would agree with you. But again, that is NOT the case here. Here the individual did not exercise free speech. He threw things at another person. But I know, you probably want to act as if that was an 'expression of speech' or some such nonsense. The same crap that violent protestors use when trashing other peoples property.

Tell you what, you go start throwing things at a foreign head of state here and see if you can do so under 'freedom of speech' without getting charged with a crime.

You are drastically reaching.

As for cultural ignorance, please explain WHAT you think I am ignorant of within their culture with regards to this situation. Comparing people throwing things at a STATUE with throwing things at a person appears quite weak on your part. So try again.

 

[Jarod]

I guess it depends on the definition of assault used in Iraq. Here it is the 'fear of bodily harm'. Bush would have to press charges (hence admitting he was fearful) in order for such a charge to stick here.

As for Russia, I fear they are getting quite desperate. They thought they were in a pretty strong position earlier this year and now find themselves right back where they were in the late 90's as oil and nat gas prices have plummetted. This may be a last ditch effort to try to exert or project power.

If oil prices don't rebound, their economy is in deep doo doo. Even worse than ours.

Here in Florida, assault is a threat of violence with the apperance of the present ability to carry out that threat (case law says this threat must be something more than verbal) and causing a reasonable fear in the victim that the threat was about to be carried out.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again you twit... if the crime was for speaking out against Bush, then I would agree with you. But again, that is NOT the case here. Here the individual did not exercise free speech. He threw things at another person. But I know, you probably want to act as if that was an 'expression of speech' or some such nonsense. The same crap that violent protestors use when trashing other peoples property.

Tell you what, you go start throwing things at a foreign head of state here and see if you can do so under 'freedom of speech' without getting charged with a crime.

You are drastically reaching.

As for cultural ignorance, please explain WHAT you think I am ignorant of within their culture with regards to this situation. Comparing people throwing things at a STATUE with throwing things at a person appears quite weak on your part. So try again.

You really are not very bright are you?

Do me a favor and think about the crime that this person is being charged with. Then think about the fact that this crime exists under Iraqi law. Then think about whether such a crime exists under US law. Then think about why such a crime doesn't exist under US law. Then think about the First Amendment. Then, if you really think that freedom of speech as we understand it actually exists in Iraq, you really really aren't very bright.

Also, pretending that the guy was throwing a tantrum like a child while displaying a traditional Arabic expression of disgust and disdain towards Bush all while doing so on behalf of the widows, orphans and those that died in the Iraq war is, well, not very bright.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here in Florida, assault is a threat of violence with the apperance of the present ability to carry out that threat (case law says this threat must be something more than verbal) and causing a reasonable fear in the victim that the threat was about to be carried out.

LOL... Is that the lawyers way of saying 'fear of bodily harm'?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You really are not very bright are you?

Do me a favor and think about the crime that this person is being charged with. Then think about the fact that this crime exists under Iraqi law. Then think about whether such a crime exists under US law. Then think about why such a crime doesn't exist under US law. Then think about the First Amendment. Then, if you really think that freedom of speech as we understand it actually exists in Iraq, you really really aren't very bright.

Also, pretending that the guy was throwing a tantrum like a child while displaying a traditional Arabic expression of disgust and disdain towards Bush all while doing so on behalf of the widows, orphans and those that died in the Iraq war is, well, not very bright.

The only one lacking intelligence in this discussion is you. Again, regardless of what name they give their law... answer this... IF you were to go to an event where the President and another head of state were speaking and you threw your shoes at them... WOULD YOU BE ARRESTED?

The answer is... of course you would. Throwing your shoes is NOT freedom of speech.

 

[Bonestorm]

The only one lacking intelligence in this discussion is you. Again, regardless of what name they give their law... answer this... IF you were to go to an event where the President and another head of state were speaking and you threw your shoes at them... WOULD YOU BE ARRESTED?

The answer is... of course you would. Throwing your shoes is NOT freedom of speech.

Probably, but not for insulting the United States because such a crime would never ever stand in our country because of the First Amendment. The fact that the crime exists under Iraqi law flies in the face of the after-the-fact defense of the war on "free speech" grounds.

That is all.

 

[Jarod]

LOL... Is that the lawyers way of saying 'fear of bodily harm'?

No there is clearly a difference and if you cant see it that is your fault. In Florida, if Bush was not afraid, this would have more likely been Attempted Battery, not assault. Attempted battery does not require the fear aspect.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Probably, but not for insulting the United States because such a crime would never ever stand in our country because of the First Amendment. The fact that the crime exists under Iraqi law flies in the face of the after-the-fact defense of the war on "free speech" grounds.

That is all.

So it is the title of the crime that you are upset about, not that it is a crime.

That is rather sad on your part. Pretending this flies against freedom of speech is a joke.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No there is clearly a difference and if you cant see it that is your fault. In Florida, if Bush was not afraid, this would have more likely been Attempted Battery, not assault. Attempted battery does not require the fear aspect.

I understand the difference between assault and battery. We were discussing assault... which is the fear of bodily harm.

 

[Jarod]

So it is the title of the crime that you are upset about, not that it is a crime.

That is rather sad on your part. Pretending this flies against freedom of speech is a joke.

If its against the law to offend the state... That does fly in the face of freedom of speech.

If its against the law to batter or attempt to batter someone, that does not fly in the face of freedom of speech.

 

[Bonestorm]

If its against the law to offend the state... That does fly in the face of freedom of speech.

If its against the law to batter or attempt to batter someone, that does not fly in the face of freedom of speech.

The fact that he is being charged with the former, not the latter is what is upsetting to me. I can understand arresting him for the latter, but arresting him for the former is a problem.

SF seems to think that because he doesn't think throwing shoes at someone is the exercise of free speech that it is OK to arrest the guy for whatever the hell they want to arrest him for since it wasn't "free speech."

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The fact that he is being charged with the former, not the latter is what is upsetting to me. I can understand arresting him for the latter, but arresting him for the former is a problem.

SF seems to think that because he doesn't think throwing shoes at someone is the exercise of free speech that it is OK to arrest the guy for whatever the hell they want to arrest him for since it wasn't "free speech."

1) It is not a question of 'thinking' it isn't free speech. It isn't. Period. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to throw things at people. Period. It will get you arrested here just as it would there.

2) I am not familiar with Iraqi law and I doubt either of you are either. But here is a thought... given the harsher punishments typically given out in the mid-east, do you think they might be doing this guy a favor to charge him with 'being an embarassment' vs. 'attempted battery on a foreign head of state'?

 

[Jarod]

The fact that he is being charged with the former, not the latter is what is upsetting to me. I can understand arresting him for the latter, but arresting him for the former is a problem.

SF seems to think that because he doesn't think throwing shoes at someone is the exercise of free speech that it is OK to arrest the guy for whatever the hell they want to arrest him for since it wasn't "free speech."

Its not what they arrest him or not that bothers me, its that offending the state is against the law in the first place.

 

[Jarod]

1) It is not a question of 'thinking' it isn't free speech. It isn't. Period. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to throw things at people. Period. It will get you arrested here just as it would there.

2) I am not familiar with Iraqi law and I doubt either of you are either. But here is a thought... given the harsher punishments typically given out in the mid-east, do you think they might be doing this guy a favor to charge him with 'being an embarassment' vs. 'attempted battery on a foreign head of state'?

You dont understand, they are not charging him for being an embarassment, they are charging him with insulting the state!

 

[Bonestorm]

1) It is not a question of 'thinking' it isn't free speech. It isn't. Period. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to throw things at people. Period. It will get you arrested here just as it would there.

2) I am not familiar with Iraqi law and I doubt either of you are either. But here is a thought... given the harsher punishments typically given out in the mid-east, do you think they might be doing this guy a favor to charge him with 'being an embarassment' vs. 'attempted battery on a foreign head of state'?

You really seem to be missing what I am saying here so let me break it down for you:

1) Focusing exclusively on the guy that threw his shoes at Bush: I will agree for the moment that what he did is not free speech. OK. We agree on that. It doesn't automatically follow that he should be arrested simply because what he did was not "free speech." In order to be arrested you have to commit a crime. What crime did he commit? If they said assault, I would understand that and say that he was rightly arrested. But that's not what happened. He was arrested for insulting a foreign head of state, which by its very nature infringes on free speech and would never exist in America.

2) As a general matter, the fact that the crime of insulting a foreign head of state exists under Iraqi law makes clear that they do not enjoy the broad protections of freedom of speech that we enjoy in the US. '

3) You should have just stopped at "I am not familiar with Iraqi law" as the rest of that is baseless nonsense.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You really seem to be missing what I am saying here so let me break it down for you:

1) Focusing exclusively on the guy that threw his shoes at Bush: I will agree for the moment that what he did is not free speech. OK. We agree on that. It doesn't automatically follow that he should be arrested simply because what he did was not "free speech." In order to be arrested you have to commit a crime. What crime did he commit? If they said assault, I would understand that and say that he was rightly arrested. But that's not what happened. He was arrested for insulting a foreign head of state, which by its very nature infringes on free speech and would never exist in America.

2) As a general matter, the fact that the crime of insulting a foreign head of state exists under Iraqi law makes clear that they do not enjoy the broad protections of freedom of speech that we enjoy in the US. '

3) You should have just stopped at "I am not familiar with Iraqi law" as the rest of that is baseless nonsense.

1 & 2) I suppose it depends on what they define as an insult. As I stated and you ignored, if the 'insult' was merely a verbal assault, then I would agree with you that their definition of freedom of speech was limited. But again, that is not the case here. The 'insult' was throwing something at him. So whether they call it battery or an insult is irrelevant. Again, you don't know their laws any better than I do. Maybe they don't have 'attempted battery'.. maybe instead they call it an 'insult'. You don't know, yet are continuing to pretend that you understand their laws enough to claim this is some hinderance to freedom of speech.

3) You should really learn to read. It was meant as an observation. One in which you should clearly consider. As you are pretending that you understand their laws when clearly you don't any more than I do. It is not baseless to state that their punishments are harsher in general than those in the US. Nor is it baseless to make that observation. Unless you KNOW what their penalties are for the two, then perhaps you should stop pretending and actually stop and think about it for a moment.

 

[Bonestorm]

1 & 2) I suppose it depends on what they define as an insult. As I stated and you ignored, if the 'insult' was merely a verbal assault, then I would agree with you that their definition of freedom of speech was limited. But again, that is not the case here. The 'insult' was throwing something at him. So whether they call it battery or an insult is irrelevant. Again, you don't know their laws any better than I do. Maybe they don't have 'attempted battery'.. maybe instead they call it an 'insult'. You don't know, yet are continuing to pretend that you understand their laws enough to claim this is some hinderance to freedom of speech.

3) You should really learn to read. It was meant as an observation. One in which you should clearly consider. As you are pretending that you understand their laws when clearly you don't any more than I do. It is not baseless to state that their punishments are harsher in general than those in the US. Nor is it baseless to make that observation. Unless you KNOW what their penalties are for the two, then perhaps you should stop pretending and actually stop and think about it for a moment.

1) I assume that the law in Iraq is similar to the same laws that exist throughout the Middle East, including in Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan and others. In those states you can be jailed for pure speech-based insults on the state or Islam. Google Orhan Pamuk. Absent some compelling reason to conclude otherwise, I think it safe to believe that the crimes are the same rather than the absurd idea that "insult" means "attempted battery." (I also find it curious that you think that the act of throwing a shoe is an insult but is not "speech." it would be considered "speech" (expressive conduct) in the US).

3) Seriously? You haven't the faintest idea what the punishments are for crimes in Iraq. Not the foggiest. And the idea that a crime exists in Iraq called "being an embarrassment" is just fucking bizarre. What is more bizarre is contemplating the relative punishments for this made up crime versus attempted battery on a foreign head of state. As I said, you should have stopped much much sooner.

 

[Jarod]

1) I assume that the law in Iraq is similar to the same laws that exist throughout the Middle East, including in Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan and others. In those states you can be jailed for pure speech-based insults on the state or Islam. Google Orhan Pamuk. Absent some compelling reason to conclude otherwise, I think it safe to believe that the crimes are the same rather than the absurd idea that "insult" means "attempted battery." (I also find it curious that you think that the act of throwing a shoe is an insult but is not "speech." it would be considered "speech" (expressive conduct) in the US).

3) Seriously? You haven't the faintest idea what the punishments are for crimes in Iraq. Not the foggiest. And the idea that a crime exists in Iraq called "being an embarrassment" is just fucking bizarre. What is more bizarre is contemplating the relative punishments for this made up crime versus attempted battery on a foreign head of state. As I said, you should have stopped much much sooner.

Throwing a shoe, especally in the manor done against president Bush is speech, as described by the supreem court, it is not however permissive speech. It is illegal to commit battery, even if done in a way that is purely expressive conduct. You see, almost everyone agrees that there should be reasonable restrictions on the first Amendment. Republicans dont agree that there should be reasonable restrictions on the second amendment only the first.

 

[Bonestorm]

Throwing a shoe, especally in the manor done against president Bush is speech, as described by the supreem court, it is not however permissive speech. It is illegal to commit battery, even if done in a way that is purely expressive conduct. You see, almost everyone agrees that there should be reasonable restrictions on the first Amendment. Republicans dont agree that there should be reasonable restrictions on the second amendment only the first.

I didn't say it was protected speech, but it is speech nonetheless.