Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Evangelists Cite 1st Amendment In Anti-Gay Protest

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 02:51 PM
Original message
Evangelists Cite 1st Amendment In Anti-Gay Protest
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/011405outfest.htm

Four Christian evangelists each facing up to 47 years in prison for inciting a riot at a gay event in Philadelphia last year will be back in court next week.

Their attorney, Brian Fahling, says they are not guilty and that the city is violating their First Amendment rights in prosecuting them.

Fahling says that Philadelphia "views the Biblical message of sin and repentance as hate speech."


so if they're quoting the bible, then it's okay to be hateful bigots?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Inciting a riot is protected by the First Amendment?
Gee, I never knew that. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. What is four fundies in jail for 47 years?
A good start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. LOL! Nice one. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingChicken Donating Member (814 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. 47 years a bit much....
It's hateful but 47 years is a huge sentance for this crime...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. nice try. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre and call it free
speech. they have no legal footing with inciting a riot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yinkaafrica Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. 47 years for inciting a riot is way too harsh
It sounds like no riot actually occurred.
No physical injury. Five years maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. I think the 47 yrs is collective for all four guys.
You may still think 10+ years is too much, but there's also early release for good behavior ya know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anakin Skywalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. They Aren't Convicted Yet.
The maximum possible sentence part is something the media always print. It's just for sensationalism. I doubt they'll even get 5.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think it's called "disturbing the peace"
and is not covered by the first ammendment. Neither are "fighting words", or harrassment, at least from what I understand, not being a legal expert.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why, how very ... um,......ACLU-like of them....
After all, the framers of the constitution were all manly men who didn't use moisturizer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seaofcrisis Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. 47 years? damn!
there has to be more to this story. They must have thrown rocks or something. I can't believe that we put people in jail essentially for the rest of their lives because of what they think - even if what they think is wrong. That is majorly scarry to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jukes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. typical yellow-journalistic inflation
to titulate mr/mrs strait amerika over morning mcnachoes & skilletpastry.

they are NOT facing 47 years in prison. grist for jawmills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murray hill farm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. How easily they twist the bible to suit their needs!
You know those signs..the billboards i used to see in northern florida along I95..the ones that said things like "dont make me come down there" God! I always wanted to put one up that said..well things like..."Capital Punishment" What part of Thou shalt not kill dont you understand? God. or..."War" What part of Thou shalt not kill or Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods..dont you understand. God! Ah well..i dont live there anymore, but still wish someone would do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. "Fighting Words" Aren't protected by the First Amendment
Nice try guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
35. Exactly right. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. geee convenient of them to quote the first amendment here
How about the second part of that amendment you freaks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Welcome to Fundieworld
When people are mean to christians it's called "Persecution."

When christians are mean to others it's called "Preaching the Gospel."

Boo friggin' hoo.

If they want to prevent people from having sodomy, then there is no better place they could possibly be than in a prison.

And they get to start by worrying about their own asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Maybe they can quote their favorite bible verses on sodomy
While they're getting shanked.

I'm terrible, I know. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
15. Lot's of things
protected by the First Amendment aren't "OK". That's why it's there, to protect unpopular speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. Oh, their lawyers are just throwing around the maximum ..
sentence to get publicity. They probably will only get a fine and probation. This is all just to make a public spectacle out of them. Both sides are benefitting from the publicity.

You may protest peacefully (pray, sing the gospel, whatever), OUTSIDE of an event, and I don't mind, as long as you do not block access to the event, and do not assault those going in. But, always, remember (Fundies), that the Government has a right to regulate the TIME, PLACE AND MANNER of your speech. That has been in the case law forever! This means that the Government can stop you from wrecking an event, and should be able to do so. These bullies went inside and assaulted (remember for assault, you do not have to hurt) the participants, ruining the event. Whatever they get, I, for one, will not be feeling sorry for them.

And no, this law student does not find it scary, because I know how far they had to cross the line in order to get these charges leveled against them; I can't wait until the video is released to the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jus_the_facts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
17. The Radical Right's Latest Courtroom Drama ....from another article...
http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/


The Radical Right's Latest Courtroom Drama

*snip*

(Charges against seven were later dropped.)

Now that the federal court has said the state prosecution can go forward, Fahling is asking the Civil Rights Division of the United States Justice Department to intervene in the case on Marcavage's behalf, on the grounds that the prosecution is a form of religious discrimination. While extremist activists are asking the public to press the Justice Department to get involved in the case, WorldNetDaily has a breathless "exclusive" today under the headline "U.S. Attorneys Complicit in the Arrest of Christians?" While the headline suggests that Justice Department attorneys offered legal advice to the police to arrest Marcavage, the article later quotes the source as saying, "They advised the police as witnesses, not as legal counsel, but as witnesses who may have observed what happened." The article is replete with suggestions of a gay infiltration of the Justice Department, owing to civil servant holdovers from the Clinton Administration. So you can guess what's coming after the Justice Department declines to defend Marcavage: that's right, the place is just crawling with anti-Christian homosexuals.

This is not Marcavage's first brush with Philadelphia area law enforcement. In 1999, when he was a student at Temple University, university officials had him involuntarily committed to a mental institution as a result of behavior stemming of his protest of a campus production of the play Corpus Christi. Fahling represents him in a federal lawsuit against the university, which is scheduled to go to trial later this year. In addition, he's been arrested on numerous other occasions stemming from his conduct at various events. In other criminal cases against Marcavage in the Philadelphia area, he's had legal help from attorneys with the Lancaster law firm of Clymer and Musser, who identify themselves as "allies" of the Alliance Defense Fund, the James Dobson-backed group that also claims that American Christians are persecuted and discriminated against.

President Bush may well owe his presidency to the bloc of voters turned out by groups like the American Family Association, who went to the polls energized by Bush's stated commitment to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Don Wildmon, Chair of the American Family Association, was part of a group of extremist evangelicals who early last year pressed President Bush to support a constitutional amendment. After the group's public statements, Wildmon reported that none other than Karl Rove himself promised the group that Bush would make such a commitment. And he did. While Bush stated in his announcement that "in all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency," Wildmon et al. were whipping their supporters into an anti-gay frenzy, spurred by provocations by people like Marcavage. But Bush doesn't care that his support came from these purveyors of vitriol. It's just part of the political capital he earned by helping them promote hate.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. So if i went to one of their rallys
and started yelling atheistic, pagans, wiccan slogans, or some other tirades these people would stand up for me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. You know, I think this is a good idea
Edited on Fri Jan-14-05 09:11 PM by OnionPatch
I really think the fundies need to be taught a lesson about their own behavior and this might do it. I'm also in favor of placing big-ass Buddhas on courthouse lawns and chanting in public gatherings when they pray. }(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
20. That's too much of a sentence unless there was assault, and even then...
It should be remembered that this can indeed set a precedent to silence progressive voices as well. I know that they weren't merely on the sidelines demonstrating--I understand. But disrupting an event shouldn't draw this kind of penalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. that's not a sentence...they "face" 47 years - must be the maximum by law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lenore Donating Member (237 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Or maybe they WERE just just on the sidelines demonstrating...
I mean, the most that is revealed in this thread is basically NOTHING other than the people were brazen enough to attempt to street preach at a homosexual event.

We can hate them because they are Christian, or because they speak out against homosexuality or even because they obviously courted conflict when choosing this event to protest. (or not)

But as for me, rather than getting caught up in all of that, it is a simple matter of whether or not this group did something unlawful, you know, something that another group would get in trouble for doing.

Because really what should matter is that the law is upheld and equally so.

So, simply put do the charges fit alleged crime and would we support the same against any other group charged with a similar offense regardless of their political/sexual affiliation.

With that in mind, I am interested in learning more about this case and have dug up some court documents that may shed more light on this situation. From first glance it appears that it could possibly be true that the group, while speaking what others might find to be unpleasant (since when is this a crime? Bush does it every day!!), didn't assault anyone with anything more than words.

http://www.repentamerica.com/images/OutFest.PDF

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orthogonal Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
21. This is a terrible denial of civil liberties
As I wrote in another thread on this subject:



The anti-gay protesters were exercising their first amendment rights.

I wrote that about the guy with the "F.U.G.W." sign, and I'll write it about these anti-gay troglodytes.

They have a right to spew their hatred, and we have a duty to protect those rights.

This is selective enforcement based on what's popular in the prosecutor's community, and it's as wrong and as insidious as when anti-Bush or anti-war or pro-gay rights demonstrators are harassed.

Chuck Volz, the Gay Pride organizer, disgusts me when he labels free speech "fighting words" in an attempt to suppress a viewpoint he disagrees with.

And just for the record: I'm an athiest, I'm pro gay marriage, I have gay friends, and I'm anti-Bush.

And I spent October in a swing state volunteering for Kerry, precisely because I was worried about this sort of suppression of liberties by Bush and Ashcroft; I'll be damned if I'll applaud it when it's "my side" doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lenore Donating Member (237 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. as Pastor Martin Niemöller put it...
When the Nazis came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak out because I was a not a Catholic. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out because I was a not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orthogonal Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
24. The facts of the case
According to the article on 365gay.com (hardly an anti-gay site),



Video of the event shows them marching to the front of a stage at Outfest and yelling Biblical passages to drown out the events on stage.

Police attempted to get the protesters to move to to (sic) an area on the edge of the site. Instead they went deeper into the gay crowd. Using a bullhorn they condemned homosexuality. They then got into an argument with a group of Pink Angels, who screamed back.

It was at that point police intervened.

. . . .

District Attorney Charles Ehrlich said the protesters disobeyed police orders to relocate within the festival.


How is this any different from what anti-Bush protesters did at the Republican National Convention in New York City?

Remember the pro-gay rights protesters who infiltrated the Young Republican event? Where one of the protesters, a little Asian girl, got kicked in the head by a Republican?

Should that girl have been charged for inciting a riot because she was kicked in the head?

To the credit of the Philly Pride attendees, they didn't kick any of the Christian protesters in the head. No violence occurred, only mutual screaming and ranting.

If you're not going to be a hypocrite, and you think these Christians committed a crime, stop complaining about the mass arrests at the Republican Convention.

And yes, it's legal to be a hateful bigot.

The First Amendment isn't about protecting what's popular or what everybody can agree about. The popular and the innocuous doesn't need protection. It's the speech that makes people angry that needs protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orthogonal Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
27. (long) extract from protestors' suit, detailing facts of the case
Edited on Fri Jan-14-05 07:08 PM by orthogonal
Before you agree that the protesters should do jail time, I ask that you at least read the following extract from the protester's complaint.

The substance of it is, the police treated the Christian protesters differently than the gay counter-protesters, arrested protesters because the Pride organizers were "annoyed", and the cops refused to cite the laws they claimed the Christian protesters were breaking.

Read it, because it's likely exactly how anti-Bush protesters will be treated at the Inaugural.

26. On October 10,2004, Philly Pride Presents, Inc. ("Philly Pride"), a private
organization, held an event called "Outfest" on the public ways of Philadelphia. Outfest is an
annual event in which Philly Pride hosts a block party to celebrate 'National Coming Out Day''-
a celebration of one's proclamation of his/her homosexuality.
27. Outfest activities are spread over approximately fifteen (15) city blocks. Outfest
is bordered by Walnut Street to the north, Pine Street to the south, I lft Street to the east, and
Juniper Street to the west. Outfest materials characteize this area as the "GAYborhood."
28. Outfest is open to the general public. Philly Pride receives $22,500 yearly from
the City of Philadelphia to conduct OutFest. There is no cost of admission to attend Outfest
activities, and persons merely walking on the streets are indistinguishable from Outfest
participants. All persons are free to move about the public area in which Outfest takes place.
29. Prior to the October 10,2004 event date, Plaintiff Michael Marcavage requested
an application from Philly Pride because he intended to request that Repent America, an
unincorporated organization, be given a display booth at Outfest. Mr. Marcavage's request even
for an application was denied.
30. In the October 8,2004 edition of the Philadelphia Gay News, Attomey Charles
Yolz, senior adviser to Philly Pride Presents, Inc., was interviewed. Volz stated that members of
the Pink Angels would ca:ry large signs alongside Christians to block their access to Outfest
participants. Specifically,Yolz reportedly stated, "We'll have a moving pink wall around them.
Hopefully, they will be so frustrated, they won't come again. Talking to a piece of styrofoam is
not the same as talking to a crowd of people."
Homosexual Activists llinder Plaintiffs' Free Speech
31. Plaintiffs, wishing to adhere to their Biblical mandate to spread the gospel of
Jesus Christ, went to the public ways on which Outfest was hosted in order to proclaim the
Christian message of salvation through Jesus Christ.
32. Immediately upon arrival at Outfest on the aftemoon of October 10,2004,
Plaintiffs were confronted by Philadelphia police officers and persons calling themselves "Pink
Angels." The Pink Angels are a self-described security force comprised of gay and lesbian
persons, transsexual s, etc..
33. Upon seeing Plaintiffs, and in full view of Philadelphia police officers, the Pink
Angels locked their arms together in order to create a human wall that blocked passage of the
public sidewalk.
34. When Plaintiffs attempted to pass by the Pink Angels so as to enter the fifteen
(15) block area in which Outfest was being held, the Pink Angels tightened their grip and refused
to move, thereby preventing Plaintiffs from entering.
35. In response to the obstruction caused by the Pink Angels, Mr. Marcavage asked
police to order the Pink Angels to grant Plaintiffs access to the public sidewalk.
36. Captain William V. Fisher responded by informing Mr. Marcavage that he was
going to instruct the Pink Angels to break the blockade, but warned Mr. Marcavage against any
"silliness."
37. After the blockade was broken up, Mr. Marcavage asked Captain Fisher whether
there was a particular location from which Plaintiffs could express their message. Captain Fisher
responded that, because Outfest was located on public streets and sidewalks, Plaintiffs could go
wherever they wanted. Notwithstanding, Captain Fisher said that wherever Plaintiffs went,
police would follow.
38. Plaintiffs then chose a location on the public way from which they would attempt
to convey their message. As soon as Plaintiffs began to raise their voices and display their signs,
the Pink Angels formed a tight circle around them, thus surrounding Plaintiffs and isolating them
from other Outfest attendees. The Pink Angels then began blowing ear-piercing whistles and
hollering in loud voices. They also held pink Styrofoam boards that stood approximately ten
(10) feet high. These actions prevented Plaintiffs' message from reaching other Outfest
attendees.
39. Mr. Marcavage urged Captain Fisher to take action against the highly
intimidating, boisterous, and interfering actions of the Pink Angels, but he refused to do so.
40. Because Plaintiffs were unable to convey an effective message due to the actions
of the Pink Angels, they began to sing a Christian song.
4I. ln response to the singing, the Pink Angels began hollering and whistling louder
than before.
Police Respond to Heckler's veto by ordering Plaintiffs to Relocate
42. The noise generated by the Pink Angels prompted Henry David, the Outfest
emcee, to demand that police "move
out of my way'' because they were "annoylng."
43. Police responded immediately to Henry David's demand by telling Plaintiffs they
had to move.
44. Captain Fisher told Plaintiffs that they had to move because the City's legal
counsel advised him that Plaintiffs could no longer stay at that location.
45. As Captain Fisher began forcibly escorting Plaintiffs to another location, the Pink
Angels moved with them, still encircling them, and continuing to hoot, holler, whistle, and hold
their tall signs.
46. As the Pink Angels continued to significantly impede Plaintiffs' passage, Mr.
Marcavage complained to Captain Fisher that the Pink Angels were illegally obstructing
Plaintiffs passage. Captain Fisher responded by telling Mr. Marcavage to seek injunctive relief
in the courts if he felt his rights were violated.
47. As a result of police inaction, the Pink Angels continued to obstruct Plaintiffs'
passage and hinder their expressive activities.
48. At a certain place along the street, Captain Fisher informed Plaintiffs that they
could preach at that location because they were far enough away from the Outfest staging area
where Henry David was located.
49. Shortly after Plaintiffs began expressing their message at the location approved by
Captain Fisher, Philadelphia police legal advisor Karen Simmons informed Mr. Marcavage that
Plaintiffs must lower their signs.
50. When Mr. Marcavage asked why, Attorney Simmons responded that Plaintiffs'
signs were hampering vendors from conducting their business. All the while, the Pink Angels
had Plaintiffs encircled, and were holding large signs.
51. Mr. Marcavage then pointed out to Attorney Simmons that it was the signs of the
Pink Angels that were obstructing the vendors. In response, Attorney Simmons stated that the
Pink Angels would lower their signs if Plaintiffs lowered theirs first.
52. At this point Chief Inspector James Tiano, liaison between the police department
and the Philadelphia homosexual community, made his presence known to Plaintiffs.
Chief Inspector Tiano Orders Plaintiffs to Relocate a Second Time
53. Chief tnspector Tiano ordered Plaintiffs to relocate to Walnut Street, an area on
outside of Outfest.
54. Upon hearing this order, Mr. Marcavage approached Chief Inspector Tiano and
asked him to cite the law Plaintiffs were allegedly violating. Chief Inspector Tiano refused to
respond. Mr. Marcavage then voiced his concern that the order to relocate along the outer
perimeter of Outfest would prevent Plaintiffs from conveying their message to their intended
audience.
55. Chief Inspector Tiano did not respond to Mr. Marcavage's concerns.
56. Mr. Marcavage made plain his willingness to cooperate with police short of being
driven out of the event.
57. When, after repeated requests, Chief Inspector Tiano refused to inform Plaintiffs
of the law they were allegedly violating, Plaintiffs began moving away from the area that
Captain Fisher initially had them stop to move to a better location.
Chief Inspector Tiano Orders Plaintiffs' Unlawful Arrest
58. As Plaintiffs began moving away from Walnut Street, Chief lnspector Tiano
immediately stopped them and placed them under arrest.
59. Captain Fisher and Attomey Simmons approved and/or consented to the arrest of
Plaintiffs.
60. All Plaintiffs were then handcuffed by police, herded into a paddy wagon, and
taken down to a police station for booking. Plaintiffs were placed under arrest at approximately
1:30 pm on the afternoon of October 10,2004.
61. Ten of the eleven Plaintiffs were held in police custody for twenty-one (21) hours.
Plaintiff Linda Beckman was held in police custody for ten (10) days.
62. Each plaintiff was charged with eight criminal counts, including three felonies
(criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot), and five misderneanors (obstructing a
highway, recklessly endangering another person, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and
possession of an instrument of crime).
63. If convicted on all counts, Plaintiffs face a maximum of forty-sev en (47) years in
prison.
64. No persons other than Plaintiffs were cited or arrested for conduct arising out of
Plaintiffs' First Amendment activities at Outfest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lenore Donating Member (237 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. maybe a little look-see too??
http://www.afa.net/clp/videos/philly11.wmv

video of the Inciting Christians in action at the event in question :-) ya they're a really violent bunch, that group!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kweerwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Before you get your knickers in a twist
about those poor scumdamentalists, you might want to check out the article about a second video of the event (one, I might add, that has much more credibility that the one on the AFA website):

http://www.nbc10.com/news/4081249/detail.html

Personally, I would have no problem if those charged did receive the maximum of 47 years in prison. But then neither would I have a problem if they were given a death sentence either. I'm fed up with so-called "christians" who twist the cross into a swastika and think it's about fucking time we started bashing them back.

So many "christians" ... so few lions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
30. why dont they want to stand in a nice First Amendment zone
10 miles away and shout????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
31. Hateful bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
33. I do have a problem with 47 years
as much as I despise the way they harrass people, this type of sentence seems way too stiff. I wouldn't want to see this happen to folks on our side. Besides, it will only feed the fundie's persecution complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Depends, for me.
I don't believe in stiff sentences for anything apart from violent crimes.

Of course, courts don't allow fighting words First Amendment protection precisely because they may lead to violence. And the risks posed by violence in a crowded public gathering is far more severe than when confronting individuals.

It's wrong to paint this as a danger for progressives. Inciting a riot is nothing akin to civil disobedience or passionate protest; not only is there no civil liberty at stake here, there is no honor or sense in such provocation. It's simple: don't crash others' meetings.

As for the fundies' persecution complex, shit, who cares? They're such magnets for self-drama, they think their goddamn toast is persecuting them in the morning. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ausiedownunderground Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
37. Good to see "The US BLUE" states getting tough with "These Whack Jobs"!
"The Rest of the World" is completely "SICK" of "Jesusland" Red States dictating how America behaves!! If you keep this up much longer you are going to get what's coming to you!!! and we won't "Give a shit"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC