Gutting it how exactly? The pleading just lays out what the law says and what the terms mean. There is no gutting at all. Some people just want the law to apply to acts the law does not apply to, simply because they were charged with that law and they want the protestors punished somehow, so damn the rule of law. moo
Which facts and why?
WOW, what an wild leap. Who said it was okay? Not me. I don't like what they did, but neither my feelings nor your feelings about it turn what they did into the federal crimes charged. This court case is about the charged crimes not about anyone's personal feelings about it. Why are you mixing up the two?
This quote from the pleading is very appropriate for this thread:
In the absence of accurate legal guidance, grand jurors would almost certainly interpret this legally complicated statute based on the common usage of terms that are defined far more narrowly in the statute. The risk of a grand jury applying incorrect standards—and therefore the need for accurate legal guidance—is particularly critical here, where the statute uses terms with special legal meaning; the conduct involves core First Amendment expression; the evidence is extraordinarily thin; and the subject matter (disruption of worship) is one about which passions run high.
moo
