The lecture of the atheist on not abusing free speech was very one-sided considering the defendant clearly needed one on why you can dress like Mohammed in America. However, I don't see how the judge could have ruled differently: the charge was harassment, not assault; and a harassment conviction requires a finding of intent. Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, there you go.
If he had been charged with assault, the video doesn't show it, the plaintiff is completely unharmed, and it's he said, he said; so Elbayomy would have gotten off either way. So all we've got is a judge being condescending to an atheist. I'm over it.
If he had been charged with assault, the video doesn't show it, the plaintiff is completely unharmed, and it's he said, he said; so Elbayomy would have gotten off either way. So all we've got is a judge being condescending to an atheist. I'm over it.
