It's illegal in the United States to form or participate in a mob that interrupts worship service. It doesn't matter how right you think you are.
It's illegal in the United States to form or participate in a mob that interrupts worship service. It doesn't matter how right you think you are.
For context:
A law was passed under President Clinton that made it illegal for protesters to interrupt religious services or impede access to an abortion clinic.
> The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is a United States law that was signed by President Bill Clinton in May 1994, which prohibits the following three things: the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion, the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship...
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Access_to_Clinic_E...
We've seen anti-abortion protesters found guilty and sentenced to prison under the same law in the past.
> Six pro-life activists convicted of federal FACE Act charges, face over a decade in prison
https://ewtn.co.uk/article-six-pro-life-activists-convicted-...
Reporting on an event is not the same as participating in it. The first amendment protects freedom of the press as much as it protects freedom of religion.
Some people are wondering if the government has to prove it is a mob, or can just say that, and then do a bunch of illegal things once they assert it. And, whether if that turns out to be a lie, if there are consequences for lying. It would be nice to have clarity there.
The law in question calls out obstruction of religious services.
You're just thumping the table. It's illegal to discriminate against Jewish university students, too, but that doesn't mean that Trump's treatment of Columbia et al was justified. What do you think it means for an official to use the law as a weapon against his enemies?
Those of us that believe in preserving civil liberties argue that we should take away powers of the government so it is harder to bully people under the color of law --- the process is the punishment. I'm not sure why the left only cares about this topic now, and not when the left was in power. The Left had a lot of opportunities to take away government powers before Trump entered office.
> we should take away powers of the government so it is harder to bully people under the color of law
This coincidentally makes it much easier for private parties to get away with illegal discrimination
Trump is doing plenty of stuff that he has absolutely no legal authority to do, so I’m not sure why you think the law is some sort of roadblock.
Because "The Left" is not some unified body as you're making it out to be. Rather it consists of professional politicians who lean authoritarian, and the grassroots who lean libertarian. And the same basic dynamic exists on "The Right" as well. It is the professional authoritarians' main job to sell their respective grassroots tribes on justifications for the authoritarian actions of their administrations. Currently, it is "The Right" who is cheering on the authoritarianism (and quite voraciously!), so anybody earnestly interested in preserving civil liberties should be opposing "The Right". When the buntings change, "The Left" gets the power back, and is back to being the marketers for authoritarianism, then it will then become necessary to oppose "The Left".
But of course to actually make any positive progress for civil liberties, it is necessary for the grassroots to hold their own politicians accountable rather than merely cheering when it is their team's at bat. Meaning it is currently the responsibility of the grassroots right to be calling out these flagrant abuses of power. They were easily easily recognizing when it was being done to them, but now they mostly seem silent. Which is the same condemnation as your comment makes, but applied to the tribe who can actually act act the moment.
"It's illegal in the United States to form or participate in a mob that interrupts worship service"
What if it is a mob of religious worshipers that are participating in the mob?
First Amendment, anyone? The right to protest and have a free press?
I guess we're raiding the homes of Congress members we simply disagree with, so Constitutional rights don't carry as much weight anymore.
The right to protest and peacefully assemble doesnt give you the right to do it in private property. The church is church property its open to its members and generally the public but that doesnt make it a public place or public property. If you want to protest a store, you are free to do so on public property outside the store. You are not free to do so inside the store disrupting the purpose of the establishment. The store is private property they are within their rights to refuse your business as long as it isnt based on a protected class.
A church really isnt any different, their business is worship and offering a peaceful place for contemplation, reflaction and prayer. If you disrupt that they can and should ask you to leave and should you refuse that becomes the crime of tresspass.
If you want to be empowered by your rights then you should first take the necessary time to understand them.
Exceptional irony in that somewhere within that church might be printed the line "and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us". Probably within some book that isn't very important.
What is the appropriate punishment for "tresspass?" How does it involve a federal law enforcement agency, and not local law enforcement instead?
> If you want to be empowered by your rights then you should first take the necessary time to understand them.
I’m asking questions to better understand.
Disrupting someone's federally protected right to assemble and worship is a civil rights issue, just like forcing people to do that would be. If you stop and think about this a bit it's really obvious how "disrupt what's happening in a house of worship I don't like" would play out if it was allowed.
In fact there's history of black churches, synagogues, mosques and Sikh temples have been attacked, bombed, disrupted, and otherwise interfered with. You don't have the right to disrupt a girl's baseball team practice on a campus either. The Klan can't march through your living room.
This isn't hard to understand.
Would Jesus have pressed charges for their trespass? Nobody got hurt or lynched. Looking for an actual Christian to chime in here.
I’m not a Christian, but even I know that there’s more to Christianity than some parables. Even then if you want to get down to it Jesus is the same guy who cleared a temple by force.
So you know, cherrypick these things at your peril.
Thank you for your take, and I am aware of the reasoning the Bible states behind clearing the temple.
Congress members are not above the law, if they commit fraud then they should be investigated and prosecuted.
The right to protest doesn’t give you or anyone the right to do so on private property and to also interrupt with religious practices.
Documenting yourself doing the above doesn’t allow you to get away with it.
What if they haven’t committed fraud? Do you believe the federal government should be allowed to harass elected officials for their speech?
In the trespass charges, local government could have handled it without costing you as much. It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars using dragnet surveillance, violating the rights of others caught in their net. I believe the Feds are only wasting money on this because of who was involved, not the crime at hand.
“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
I can’t reply to your other comment so commenting here.
Thank you for being so civil, these discussions tend to get very heated very quickly.
You are right that it is a misdemeanor unless there was an aggravating factor but I don’t think that has been alleged. But it does seem to be a federal offense nonetheless if someone does violate the code below.
18 U.S.C. § 247
>intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, including by threat of force against religious real property, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/247
Don Lemon does seem to be charged with Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) and FACE Act Violation (18 U.S.C. § 248). Given that 247 deals with interstate commerce which wouldn’t make sense like you said.
Which congress person are you referring to? I would agree that there would need to be probable cause.
Interfering with religious worship is a federal offense, so I don’t think it could just be handled by the local government.
I'm just speaking hypothetically, of course. Otherwise the federal government ran by either party could just declare "fraud" or "show me your birth certificate" for 10 years without probable cause and keep repeatedly harassing the elected officials they disagree with.
> Interfering with religious worship is a federal offense
Pretty sure it's a misdemeanor offense in some states, but is not a federal offense. Open to reading the federal statute if you can cite one.
You have rights to assemble and protest, they have rights to assemble and worship. It’s all about trying to strike a reasonable balance between your competing rights.
That narrative is what the Justice Dept alleges, but it’s far from settled. Don’t be disingenuous.
It's on video.
"The affidavits supporting the applications to track Richardson claimed video showed Fort, Lemon, Richardson, and others “chanting with agitators.” Prosecutors have since conceded that Lemon and Fort did not chant".
Depends on what you meant by "it" here, the prosecutors' have already conceded that at least some of their claims in the affidavit were false, so I would agree that it's hardly settled. (I haven't watched the video nor would recognize Richardson).
What I meant is what he did is on video. Whether that is considered breaking the law or not, that's up to the jury.
he was acting as a journalist covering a protest. go lick a boot (earlier comment got flagged so im repeating the message)
Journalist 2nd, activist first. Also personal attacks are uncalled for.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Amen. It's sickening how many people will eagerly repeat the paper-thin narratives put out by the regime about "legality", without ever critically considering why and how the regime got involved in a given situation in the first place. We're being subject to rule by law, not rule of law - it went out the window when the Supreme Council decreed a "unitary executive" above the law, aka autocracy by any other name.
[flagged]
No they didn't.