In last year’s Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade, two members of The Atheists of Central Pennsylvania walked in the parade dressed as a zombie pope and a zombie Muhammad.
Around the neck of Ernie Perce, the zombie Muhammad, was a sign identifying him as the undead prophet of Islam. In a YouTube video, filmed from the perspective of Perce, viewers can faintly make out what sounds like an altercation.
The angry observer was a Muslim man who was offended by this depiction of Muhammad. Perce told WHTM the man “grabbed me, choked me from the back and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck.”
After Perce walked a few blocks, he found Sgt. Brian Curtis and reported the harassment. Curtis agreed that Talaag Elbayomy, the Muslim man, “was wrong in confronting” Perce, and charged Elbayomy with harassment.
A few days ago, the case was brought before District Judge Mark Martin, who threw out the charge for lack of evidence.
While the video indicates that an altercation occurred, it would be hard to determine the nature of the conflict from the dark and shaky video. Convictions should be based on evidence, indicating beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, there is arguably nothing wrong with the ruling.
However, what was unacceptable was the lecture the judge gave Perce, the plaintiff, regarding the limitations of the First Amendment on free speech.
The judge explained how, while in the military, he spent time in “predominantly Muslim” countries. Nothing in the Quran says that Muhammad rose from the dead, he said.
So because the atheist was not 100 percent factual in his depiction of Muhammad, this form of expression should not be considered free speech? If that is the case, then the implication that satire is not a protected form of speech represents a gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment.
The judge went on to say that Perce’s costume made him “look like a doofus.” By this statement, the judge implies that atheists should not be able to make fun of other religions if others are offended by their views.
To top it off, the judge rambled about how, in Muslim countries, these actions would be punishable by death. What in the hell does this have to do with the laws in our country? Why is this relevant to bring up in this case?
He went on to imply that, by offending the prophet Muhammad, Perce violates the rights of Muslims.
Martin said, “We’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights.”
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that we have a right to NOT be offended?
This ruling is a serious affront to free speech and the First Amendment.
