4 ms·

That's still no more than a state-level misdemeanor trespass. The federal charges are insane.

by hoten 8mo ago

zahlman 8mo ago
[flagged]
- hoten 8mo ago
  Yes. Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2]. I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it. > than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor. [1] https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/2 https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
  > Federal charges are appropriate where federal law is violated, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal government has the right to bring them. And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed. > "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees. They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution. > If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response? Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
  - kcplate 8mo ago
    > Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
      > it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested Just to be clear, this is the ad hominem, which is moot. Even if this is true, it has no bearing on the case being discussed and the question is a foolish one for this silly political game you describe: firstly, it can easily be turned around on the asker and, secondly, it has an extremely obvious game theoretic answer of "yes" because that's the only option to get one's interrogator to continue with the actual discussion. (Thanks for proving the point.)
      - kcplate 8mo ago
        While it has no bearing on the active case itself, within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case. Would they have a different opinion if the variables were tweaked a bit, but the action and violation of the statute was the same? It’s always a good exercise to evaluate your opinion this way, it should help keep you honest about legal fairness.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
        > within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case You say that it matters for these silly political "gotcha!" games. I say it therefore does not matter. It is an ad hominem attack which has no basis in the discussion.

That's still no more than a state-level misdemeanor trespass. The federal charges are insane.

by hoten 8mo ago

That's still no more than a state-level misdemeanor trespass. The federal charges are insane.

zahlman 8mo ago

[flagged]

hoten 8mo ago
Yes. Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2]. I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it. > than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor. [1] https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/2 https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
> Federal charges are appropriate where federal law is violated, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal government has the right to bring them. And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed. > "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees. They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution. > If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response? Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
- kcplate 8mo ago
  > Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
    > it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested Just to be clear, this is the ad hominem, which is moot. Even if this is true, it has no bearing on the case being discussed and the question is a foolish one for this silly political game you describe: firstly, it can easily be turned around on the asker and, secondly, it has an extremely obvious game theoretic answer of "yes" because that's the only option to get one's interrogator to continue with the actual discussion. (Thanks for proving the point.)
    - kcplate 8mo ago
      While it has no bearing on the active case itself, within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case. Would they have a different opinion if the variables were tweaked a bit, but the action and violation of the statute was the same? It’s always a good exercise to evaluate your opinion this way, it should help keep you honest about legal fairness.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
        > within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case You say that it matters for these silly political "gotcha!" games. I say it therefore does not matter. It is an ad hominem attack which has no basis in the discussion.