• #2,601
I was responding to the overall tone of the piece, not the minute details.
Right. Because it was not an opinion piece. It was factual reporting.

I didn't see a tone. It might be you didn't like the facts?

MOO
 
  • #2,602
Right. Because it was not an opinion piece. It was factual reporting.

I didn't see a tone. It might be you didn't like the facts?

MOO
We disagree, and it'd be nice to just leave it at that without your condescending remarks.
 
  • #2,603
"The problem, some former Civil Rights Division lawyers say, is that the section in the FACE Act criminalizing interference at houses of worship fundamentally misstates the rights people have under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects individuals' religious freedom from government interference. But it does not protect them from interference by private individuals, like the protesters and journalists charged in the indictment, they say. "

No wonder there was a clean-up at the CR division.
 
  • #2,604
Thanks for the link that defines the speaking indictment. Good information to understand how it works, why it works, and how it can backfire.
You're welcome!
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
2,780
Total visitors
2,902

Forum statistics

Threads
646,217
Messages
18,855,741
Members
245,937
Latest member
GeoAms
Top