Recent content by J. J. in Phila

What the quoted poster can't or won't understand is that they are inseparable. These cases deal with alleged violations of the First Amendment rights of protestors. The courts have said repeatedly, that governments can adopted statutes covering this. Just recently, 2025, SCOTUS had a chance...

Those are quite relevant. The statute is CO was based on the FACE Act. The second one WAS the FACE Act. The Church is part of Southern Baptist denomination, which take it across state lines. <modsnip> MOO.

Perhaps the "civil rights attorneys" should look at Hill vs. Colorado https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/703/ and Reno vs. American Life League https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/855/137/1973188/ MMO.

The statute, however, has been found constitutional.

An indictment is not an extrajudicial comment. The material is based on testimony and/or video. The rest of your comment starts from false premises and descends from there. IMO.

What has been cited here does not. Discussing what is in a public indictment is not "materially prejudicing a jury trial in a pending criminal matter." Saying something like "Lemon beats his dog" would be, because he is not charged with that, for example.

I am not certain that a retweet would constitute a statement. Further, the storms churches, et c. is part of the public indictment. MOO

Because no one else is.

That is actually in the indictment, as to storming a church. The law was originally directed at the KKK.

Thank you, I will be doing the sane thing.

SCOTUS said it in Branzburg, very broadly. Face it, Lemon is squeezed. MOO

No, the prosecutors will be filing the ethics complaint. MOO

It shows that the courts are very skeptical of claims that journalists do not have to follow the law in being journalists. MOO

The actual court's opinion has been linked, not some summary or spin. Here is part of what Branzburg vs. Hayes really said: "We do not question the significance of free speech, press, or assembly to the country's welfare. Nor is it suggested that news gathering does not qualify for First...

This is not about any killings nor what you would do. This is about Lemon's violation of the rights of others, which constituted a criminal act. Lemon was not blindfolded. He knew that the purpose was "an action." It is obvious that he knew. MOO.