Sharia laws have taken over the state of California as they push free speech aside, a right no longer afforded to the people of California.
In a shocking but not surprising incident in the liberal state of California, the state has leveled misdemeanor charges against 41-year-old Scientologist Mark Feigin who also goes by the name Milosz and speaks Polish. He was charged after he sent five posts critical to Islam to the Islamic Center of Southern California’s (ICSC) Facebook page in 2016.
The California Law in question violates the 1st Amendment especially if the target is and individual with, themselves, a political agenda. California use of a illegitimate law to advance a tyrannical suppressible atmosphere on California residents.
California law defines hate speech as any speech that tells the truth about Islam. Islam has many negative things within, a prophet that was a warlord, had a child bride, he was a slave owner, terrorist and mass murderer. All these are facts that are recorded inside the Islamic texts. But dare not be critical of this backwards religion, in some European states and now California you can be arrested for being critical of Islam.
The California Attorney General’s office argues that his comments constituted “repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device” with “intent to annoy or harass,” a misdemeanor under California law.
California courts are scheduled to begin the trial Jan. 2, according to court records. Feigin admitted in October 2016 that he wrote five comments between Sept. 17 and 25 of the same year on their Facebook page.
The Islamic centers Communications Coordinator Kristin Stangas blocked Feigin soon after he made the final post, but also kept copies of the comments to pursue legal action. The Los Angeles Police Department arrested Feigin Oct. 19 and interviewed him. Feigin is now arguing that his charges should be dismissed because they are based on an unconstitutional application of the law.
Specifically, Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b) states that “every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device … to another person is … guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.”
The California Attorney Generals office argues that Facebook comments are not legally different from telephone calls in this circumstance, and that Feigin’s intent was clearly to “annoy or harass,” making his actions illegal. California’s theory is that the exception doesn’t apply to this sort of criticism that is “cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it.
Mr Feigin said he was falsely charged with threatening an Islamic Center over the phone in 2016 by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris after writing a few Facebook posts that were critical of Islam. He said: “I am facing six years in prison — for something I didn’t do.”
The LAPD raided his home Gestapo style and took his legally-owned guns and ammo, which they used to portray him as a domestic terrorist. The media has chosen to condemn him as he is an openly a Trump Supporter, something the liberal leaders in the State of California frown at.
Mark Feignin came on the target form the State of California list when as a Realtor® in the Los Angeles area stared advertising a free AR-15 if you purchase your home with him.
The charges against Feignin can’t possibly be consistent with the First Amendment; indeed, in U.S. v. Popa (D.C. Cir. 1999), the D.C. Circuit set aside a telephone harassment conviction of someone who left seven racist messages on the voicemail of then-U.S.-Attorney Eric Holder; and the court focused on the “political message” of the speech, and not on Holder’s status as a government official. Given that insults targeted to a particular person, related to a political message, are thus constitutionally protected, so are more general insults aimed at an ideology and all its adherents, whether that ideology is Islam, Scientology, conservatism, gun rights, or anything else. Laws aimed at preventing unwanted repeated messages to particular private citizens shouldn’t be applied to messages sent to ideological organizations (or to public officials). And this is especially so when it comes to annoying Facebook posts, which the organization can simply block.
Caleb Mason at Brown White & Osborn LLP — which many conservativepapers readers may know as the firm at which Ken White (Popehat) — has filed motions to dismiss the charges; we hope the court indeed promptly throws them out as unjustified under the statute, forbidden by the First Amendment, or both. But if the courts accept such charges, expect to see many more people, left, right, and otherwise, prosecuted for posting insulting messages on many groups’ web pages.