Hawaii Settles Court Case with Protesting Atheists for $100,000

The video angers me greatly, the reolution pleases me greatly!

How can the SENATE get so many things wrong?

Good news.  I hope he donates some of the $$ to the FFRF.

Okay first off I understand that this hops over the separation of church and state. Yes it does. But, the video, the protest, the “he drew blood from me I’m such a victim” rant is so sad. 

The whole thing is staged or else why would the be filming this thing in the first place. Secondly the “he drew blood” comment. Really. Three words to ya “Man up son!” Stop trying to be such a victim. Sue the state. Get whatever organization involved that you want to help promote change for a cause you believe in. That’s fine. The “I’m a victim” card went out a long time ago. These two guys aren’t victims. I scratch on the pavement by a police officer is not a victim. 

And I say yelling in protest in the chambers of a state government is NOT a peaceful protest. There is nothing peaceful about it. Just because he didn’t light a fire or throw a rock doesn’t automatically qualify this sad, staged attempt at trying to turn yourself into a victim is peaceful. 

A peaceful, respectful protest is one outside of the chambers. If my neighbor is playing loud music, I call the cops and he gets in trouble for what… wait for it….disturbing the peace. If noise can disturb the peace in a residential setting, the same could be said for a government proceeding. If one disturbs the peace, then their protest cannot be labeled as peaceful can it?

So what you’re saying mommaJ is that you feel it’s fine for them to be able to stop someone from filming an assault.  There is nothing in that video that is appropriate behavior for government officials.  Breaking cameras, yelling specifically to “get that camera!”, physically contacting and assaulting someone.  You call for them to “Man up son!”…wrong reaction.  wrong wrong wrong.  There is no “manning up” to oppression.

Ridiculous.

Except the camera man was clearly in on it. He didn’t get kicked out of the house, he followed the guy who was being taken out and was all up in their business. As they were pinning the other guy down to the ground (more aggressively than the situation warranted) he stuck his nose and camera in too far and was keeping the police from doing their job. If I drive by and see a traffic stop, I’m pretty sure it’s not okay for my pull my car over, get my camcorder out and stick it 6 inches from the deputy’s face. Filming an assault is fine. Trying to make sure that you become part of the assault is stupid. Am I the only one not naive enough to see through this?

If speech can be seen as a peaceful, then why do whistle blowers claim “hate speech” as soon as someone speaks up against someone with a less-traditional background. If I said that “I think being gay is a sin” in public I’d probably get cussed, dirt kicked  on my and if I did on the job I’d get fired. Isn’t that free speech? There was no violence by me right? 

There is power in words and you know it. That’s why there’s a battle over free-speech in the first place correct? I don’t see how someone can be upset for not being allowed to voice their opinion and try to claim that someone else’s words are illegal and is deemed “hate speech”

@ Drew: It’s a bit different when your interfering with an arrest versus being attacked. Yes, the camera man needs to toughen up. I would be ashamed if I was that guy and got money for getting a scratch from a police officer when I was trying to interfere with an arrest. Again, the take down of the protester seemed a bit rough. But, you can’t tell me that neither one of them had thought through possible consequences of what might happen. The knew this might happen. The camera guy put up more of a fight than the mocker did. 

By “mocker,” do you by chance intend to say “defender of the constitution?”

“contemptuous behavior”? 

Could that possibly be construed to mean “failure to stand and bow head during the invocation”?
They sure love the Haole religion in the islands, don’t they?

 Police officers twisting your limbs behind your back while smashing their knees into your back and head while grinding your face into pavement certainly sounds scary to me. Physically it would be kind of painful, but knowing that the person doing it to you has the pseudo-authority to SHOOT YOU WITH THE GUN HE HAS ON HIS PERSON is terrifying. The men who stood up to the machine in this case put their life at risk, while the risk of death was very very small, it was a risk none the less.

I applaud them for not backing down and following up with a strong court case. It has brought a lot of light to a situation that needed exposed. They are champions of free speech and the law of our land.

Don’t be a hater, J.

Sheesh, Curtst.  Don’t be such a drama queen. 

1.  No, Jar, it means they created a disturbance and resisted when told to tone it down.

2.  We always felt you’d grow up to be a bigot, Jay, and you’ve added ‘religious’ to your repetoire.

Come on, Jar, it you knew Itch Kahle you’d know he staged this thing along with intended provocations.

Disorderly persons should be removed from the public and if they choose to resist, I don’t lose a whole lotta sleep if they get man-handled in the process.

Erase the hate, bucko.

OMG the drew blood! Whah!!! Seriously? I get scratched up more in one solid day’s work then probably ever has. It’s not like he has permanent damage?

Read your own post. 

 “he tried to walk outside to continue filming, and one guy tried to block him. After he was able to get through” 

If a security detail is trying to block me and is telling me to do something than I’m going to do it. I would not try to push the issue and then cry about it once they fought back.

So you are saying the court never makes a mistake? O.J. Simpson must really be innocent then I guess, eh? 

There are times when courts must determine facts (Did O.J. do it) and when they must interpret the law (was the level of force justified).  In the latter, it’s always going to be an opinion which some people will disagree with.  The only opinion that really matters though is that of the court.

What I’d really like to know is what portion of the damages were punitive.  One of the reasons for a large award such as this is to to make sure changes are made.  If you don’t, then the message is “business as usual” and peaceful protesters have to worry about being injured. 

If a security detail is trying to block me and is telling me to do something than I’m going to do it.

I hope that’s not the case blindly.  Just because someone with a badge tells you to do something doesn’t in and of itself mean you should do it.  Consider it strongly, yes. Turn off your brain?  I’m sure that’s not what you meant.

Oh, wow, what a harvest of stupid trolls in the thread.

On the topic, though… right on! Make the jackasses pay every time; it will bring about change very quickly.

Uh, you did notice that he’s in prison now, right?

The famous criminal murder trial was a decision by a jury that there was insufficient evidence to convict Simpson. This case is a settlement agreed to by Hawaii officials themselves. So essentially, you’re arguing against their own acknowledgement that they screwed up. Good luck with that.

What a great shirt he has on.

Now re-read the comment: House invocation prayers. Senate ≠ House.

I’ve worked security. I order you to review the philosophy of peaceful protest.

Yes he’s in prison, but not for murder. From what I understand, aren’t most “settlements” made b/c it usually saves the institution money in the long run? 

My interpretation isn’t that a settlement means you are admitting guilt. Rather you are just trying to save some cash (court fees, lawyer fees, etc). I’m not for sure if this was the case here or not. I haven’t looked that far into it yet.

Nope. You’re right. It wouldn’t be a blind following, but I would be strongly considering it. Again, I have no problem with their message or what they are trying to accomplish. 

I actually agree with them. I’m just not so sure their method is the best one and the “he drew blood so now I’m going to cry and sue because I’m such a victim card” is a bit weak.   Especially when they kind of expected some fire works to take place. Why else would they be videotaping?

Just because the system can be played in such a way, I don’t think that means it is ethical to play it that way. 

It’s as if I started going from restaurant to restaurant hoping to find a cup of coffee that didn’t warn me that it was hot. Then I “accidentally” knock it over in my lap. Oops! I think I’ll sue. The only difference is the point one is trying to raise. The process is eerily similar though. Trying to play victim when you know what’s going to happen.

 Calling us “haters”, “bigots”, and “drama queens” is hardly “supporting their position”, IMO.
Projection is more like it.

“He is disturbing the peace”

I disagree with this tremendously. He is disturbing an activity that is a direct violation of our constitution.

What if he had been at an underground slave auction and he started yelling about the constitution? I mean, they were just normal god fearing slave owners having a peaceful assembly after all.

Your very lame argument of disturbing the peace could be used against anyone anywhere for speaking or acting in any way that you objectively deem in violation of peace, in other words, its total bullshit.

Firstly I have to say that I’m quite sure that all kinds of “hate speech” are protected by the first amendment regardless of where you are. It’s one of the side effects of being able to have free speech is that we also have to listen to that which we don’t always agree with.

As to whether or not an employer can fire you over something you say on the job I believe they can fire you for almost any reason as long as it is not due to you being under a protected status (race, religion etc). With most instances however you just have to follow whatever guidelines that are laid down by the institution you are working at.  

The way you handle controversial discussions in your class (I assume you are a public school teacher) is probably the best course of action overall. You as a teacher aren’t there to give your own opinions to your students, you’re there to teach the material that you’re supposed to.   With your hypothetical however it would be hard to determine what course of action should/would be taken without a more specific example.  If it’s a small thing or a first time offense then I would say you probably shouldn’t be fired if it “slipped out” but if it became a problem then that would be a different matter.  Mainly it depends on what your job is and how you end up representing your employer.  If it happens to be the government then you have to follow some more strict rules on free speech than a private organization may have to.  

Finally with your last example I would consider that to be a situation that shouldn’t be going on.  In a school if you’re doing the work and understanding the material I can’t fault you for not agreeing with it, from a grade perspective.