|Judge Martin: I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; |
I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture,
you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”
Original Post: Pennsylvania Sharia Law? Free speech vs. Insulting Islam
Granted the tapes were partial, but do they square with what Judge Martin is claiming now? There must be an official taping or court reporting system for the hearing in question. Shouldn't that resolve the issue (probably not for official judicial council review, but at least in terms of immediate public interest)?
Update: Hundreds of death threats to "Zombie Mohammed" victim.
Update II: Volokh Conspiracy makes a good follow on point:
More from Judge Mark Martin (of the Zombie Mohammed Incident), on CNN
From a CNN interview (starting at 2:15):
Interviewer: When I spoke to him over the phone, Judge Martin acknowledged it’s his job to protect the rights of people like the atheist, no matter how offensive they might be.Interviewer to Judge Martin: … There are some who believe you were failing to protect that right.Judge Martin: No, I don’t think so. Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.
But I don’t quite see how this is “the thing,” at least in the sense of an explanation of the judge’s actions at the trial. I don’t think that we’re in danger of losing our free speech rights because some people say things that are offensive to Muslims. I do think that free speech rights are in danger when judges berate alleged crime victims for their anti-Islam speech, and thus convey the message that the legal system may be biased against those who engage in such speech and may fail to protect those people because of such speech.