• #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!
 
  • #2,605
We disagree, and it'd be nice to just leave it at that without your condescending remarks.
What condescending remarks? I didn’t see anything that reeks of condescension to me. JMO IMO
 
  • #2,606
No wonder there was a clean-up at the CR division.

Definitely. The administration must have felt loyalty trumps the Constitution. It's really sad.

MOO.
 
  • #2,607
Jonathan Darnel, an anti-abortion activist who was sentenced to 34 months in prison in a FACE Act case and then pardoned by Trump, told NBC News on Thursday that he wanted to see the final report before commenting on it. But Darnel also criticized the Trump administration’s approach to the FACE Act against Lemon.

“I’m definitely not a fan of overzealous prosecution, whichever way it goes,” Darnel told NBC News after Lemon’s arrest. “The punishment should fit the crime, and FACE — especially when you couple FACE with conspiracy charges — could send somebody to prison for years, and that just seems like way too much of a penalty for what is effectively just ruining people’s morning.”


I mentioned Darnel earlier. He is not the only pro life activist who at least is consistent in being against the Face Act in all cases, including Randall Terry.


Also regarding that ridiculous "weaponization" report,


moo
 
  • #2,608
I mentioned Darnel earlier. He is not the only pro life activist who at least is consistent in being against the Face Act in all cases, including Randall Terry.


Also regarding that ridiculous "weaponization" report,


moo
So---

The Lemon arrest is an ABOUT-FACE on FACE?

I'll see myself out.

MOO
 
  • #2,609
"Earlier this year, the Justice Department charged journalist Don Lemon and dozens of others with violating a provision of the law in connection with an anti-ICE protest inside a church in Twin Cities, Minnesota, which prohibits people from intimidating or interfering with people exercising their constitutional freedom to practice religion.

Earlier draft excerpts of the FACE Act report previously reviewed by CBS News show that the Justice Department's civil rights appellate lawyers penned a memo in 2018 which warned prosecutors not to charge the house of worship provision because it was unconstitutional and lacks a jurisdictional hook.

Such an internal memo could potentially harm the ongoing FACE Act prosecution in Minnesota. The final version of the report released on Tuesday does not appear to make reference to the memo."

 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
2,275
Total visitors
2,395

Forum statistics

Threads
646,333
Messages
18,858,041
Members
245,985
Latest member
Re-Read2025
Top