Legal News United States

Judge sets ‘horrible precedent,’ Freedom Center president says

David Horowitz, president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, plans to run a newspaper ad because of ‘horrible precedent.’ David Horowitz, president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, plans to run a newspaper ad because of ‘horrible precedent.’


TORONTO – The David Horowitz Freedom Center will run an educational ad in Pennsylvania newspapers following a local judge’s refusal to prosecute a Muslim man who allegedly assaulted someone for insulting Islam.

According to news reports, Ernest Perce V was dressed as “Zombie Mohammed” in a Halloween parade in Pennsylvania last October when he was allegedly attacked by Talaag Elbayomy.

Perce posted on the internet a video of the alleged attack and an audio recording purported to be of the resulting court case. In the audio recording, after testimony is heard, Judge Mark Martin gives Perce a four-minute lecture about Islam, in which he states, “It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others.... I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so we can speak what’s on our mind, not to piss off other people, other cultures, which is what you did.”

The judge concedes that Perce has the right to offend Muslims but, nevertheless, “you are way outside your First Amendment rights.”

He then dismisses the charge of harassment against the alleged assailant.

The judge has set “a horrible precedent,” according to David Horowitz, president of the Freedom Center. Martin’s finding has “opened the door for Muslims to legally attack Americans who they feel offend them on religious grounds.” In effect, the judge’s statements make American constitutional rights subservient to Sharia (Islamic) law, which forbids blasphemy against Islam or its prophet, Horowitz said.

“To adopt blasphemy laws would be to obliterate our freedom and democracy,” warned Horowitz.

Sharia law should not be legalized in the West because “it’s misogynistic, it’s totalitarian, it controls every aspect of your life, it’s religious law and it forbids blasphemy. Blasphemy laws would be the end of free speech.”

The newspaper ad, which will run in Pennsylvania, is part of the Freedom Center’s ongoing educational campaign, which includes information about the dangers of Sharia, Horowitz said.

“This is an educational and political mission.... The main battle is for people’s minds.”

The campaign aims to combat what he called “a movement to subvert American institutions and to suppress any criticism of the subversion of those institutions.”

This movement to advance Sharia law is being conducted by “an armada of organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Student Association, which are part of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is advancing this agenda,” Horowitz said.

For more information, visit


  • michellesuf

    What is the Judge’s personal religious perference? I imagine the Supreme Court will reverse this decision, when, not if, the case is taken there.

    • Bernhardt

      The’judge in his diatribe stated Muslims are offended by what the accused did and (indeed) “I am a Muslim and I am offended” he then dismissed the eye witness testimony of the police officer and refused to admit the video stating it was irrelevant . Do I need to draw any conclusions ?

  • Pingback: Defiéndase contra el veredicto de blasfemia en los tribunales de Occidente « NUEVA EUROPA- Nueva Eurabia

  • Anonymous

    There is an exception to the First Amendment for “fighting words”. I am not as sure as the Judge was that it would be applicable in that set of circumstances. Perhaps that is why he did not want the video admitted.

  • Davidka

    As a lawyer, I can assure you that the judge acted outrageously and displayed gross bias, based on the reported facts and the transcript which has been posted online. The crime victim had every right under the law to mock Mohammed by depicting him as a zombie. The judge was completely wrong in saying the victim was “outside his First Amendment rights.” The judge was also wrong in refusing to consider what was obviously important evidence. The judge violated judicial ethics and behavior standards, which require that he treat litigants and witnesses with respect and act in a dignified manner. He was verbally abusive to the crime victim and called him names like “doofus.” He also acted improperly by later threatening him with contempt of court in a phone call.

    Michellesuf is unfortunately wrong in thinking the Supreme Court will reverse the decision. Cases like this reach the Supreme Court only one in a million times.

    Salubrius raises the issue of the “fighting words” doctrine. It is not applicable here. The victim did not challenge anyone to a fight. To say that the assailant’s attack is excused because of a sign making fun of Mohammed, would be to subject everyone’s First Amendment rights to criticize Islam to the veto of any Muslim thug who happened to be around and was offended.

    For your information, at least one complaint has been filed against Judge Martin with the appropriate authority. For anyone else interested in complaining, the Judicial Conduct Board, which disciplines judges like him, is at Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500, P.O. Box 62525, Harrisburg, PA 17120-0901. It has a web site where complaint forms may be downloaded. Tel. 717 234-7911

  • Meb1

    Unfortunately, Britain has fallen into the trap of Islam.
    There are parts of London, Leeds, Manchester, where no non muslim may enter, for fear of being attacked.

    Britain has allowed sharia law into the country. That means that within, possibly 10 years, the Muslim population will grow to such an extent, that they will demand Sharia law becomes part of the laws of the state.

    This is happening in Holland, Belgium, France etc.

    The civilised countries should ban any other law, other than the law of that state.

    They have allowed Mulsims to immigrate at a fast pace. Are they not aware that islam has an agenda to rule the world with a caliphate?


    • ray

      sharia law in britain or in any other “western” country is, and has to be, subservient to the existing human rights based laws of that country; how a judge interprets both is the judge’s prerogative and is subject to appeal in the same manner as the decision of a judge in another court case. jewish and christian tribunals based on jewish and christian religious law exist and operate and have done so for a century in the U.S. in the same way.

      there are more muslim conversions and births in the U.S. than actual muslim immigrants per year…check it out. britain and europe colonized dominantly muslim nationstates, the U.S.A. has tried to neocolonize a few this century.

Welcome to the Jewish Tribune's online interactive community. We encourage the free flow of ideas and hope that everyone will contribute to the conversation.

Comments posted by readers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Jewish Tribune. We reserve the right to delete comments that we believe cross the line of civil discourse including libel, slander, defamatory comments and calls for violence. Please note that if comments are not deleted that is not an endorsement by the Jewish Tribune.