check out THIS POST
and this video:
You’re not right about that. Churches are generally open to the public, and are generally open to the public for reasons other than just worship services (community functions, outside clubs, etc.). To make an entry into the facility “trespass,” there would need to be an order given to leave which was defied. That makes it “trespass” which refers only to the act of entry. If unauthorized activities are then engaged in, the crime would be something else, like disorderly conduct, riot, or some conduct based charge other than the entry itself.
The civil rights charges may have some sticking power, although I think we will see not as to Don Lemon. He was clearly there as a journalist, and although he may have been engaged in advocacy journalism, like our dear host mostly engages in. I think it highly unlikely that the charge against Lemon and the other journalist have any legs passed an initial presentment or a motion to dismiss - IOW, as soon as a judge gets a chance, they are both out of this case.
As to the FACE Act charge, I doubt that stands as to anyone. Although the FACE Act says
Blockquoteby force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;
those are defined as
(2)Interfere with.—
The term “interfere with” means to restrict a person’s freedom of movement.
(3)Intimidate.—
The term “intimidate” means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.
(4)Physical obstruction.—
The term “physical obstruction” means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.
I don’t see any evidence that any of that happened. I understand that some of the parishoners are claiming “Fear,” but that fear is likely unreasonable since no one threatened anyone else. They just made a nuisance of themselves and then left of their own accord.
If any crimes were committed, they were state law crimes, and the Federal charges are overreach.
Good question.
Try again.
Most churches are legally recognized as private property owned by a specific religious organization. As private property owners, religious groups generally have the authority to establish rules for conduct on their premises and to control who is permitted to enter. This authority allows a church to manage its sacred space according to its own values and mission.
Because they are private owners, churches can ask individuals who are disruptive or who violate established rules to leave. If a person refuses to leave after being told to do so, they may be considered a trespasser under local or state laws. In such cases, law enforcement may be called to remove the individual from the property.
1 Like
They are private property just like a Walmart is private property. Both are open to the public (at their published times of open operation).
And they can ask you to leave and be trespassed.
Just because they are open to the public at certain times does not mean they are public property.
Some people need to learn the damn difference like those idiots at Target.
3 Likes
And here we are talking about Lemon entering in and meddling during a church service. A specific designated service.
Stop with the long winded BS. Lemon obviously violated the law and meddled with a church service which is protected under the FACE Act.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is a 1994 federal law (18 U.S.C. § 248) that prohibits using force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with people providing or obtaining reproductive health services or attending religious worship.
2 Likes
Of course. What’s your point?
You just repeated what I said with more words
That’s literally what I said.
OK, but you’re ignoring what interfere means as defined in the statute. It’s really very limited.
Is there a definition where screaming and shouting people down during a sermon isn’t interfering with it?
2 Likes
Yes, the FACE Act:
(2)Interfere with.—
The term “interfere with” means to restrict a person’s freedom of movement.
To be trespassed they needed to defy a request to leave per you. Lemon did just that. He was asked to leave and did not do so when asked.
The ■■■■ you will defend when its your golden boy. He embedded with these ■■■■■■■■■ He brought donuts to the pre-planning staging ground.
Y’all are wrong on this one.
3 Likes
And they did that. Parents were kept from their children. But that’s OK right, because they are evil white supremacists per Lemon.
1 Like
What ai says is a face act violation:
“Yes, entering a clinic to disrupt services is a violation of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Enacted in 1994, this law makes it a crime to use force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone obtaining or providing reproductive health services.
Key details regarding FACE Act violations:
Prohibited Actions: Physical obstruction (such as sit-ins or blocking doors), trespassing, or using intimidation to prevent access to clinics constitutes a violation.“
No it doesn’t. It means:
-
Take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity.
-
Prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.
It is not limited to restricting movement. It is about restricting any activity or even inactivity such as sleeping.
None of what you typed is in the statue. What @dderatz typed is directly from the statue.
Who cares, it’s still interference.
Here is what AI has to say about that:
“Statutory definitions of interference generally describe it as wrongful conduct—including harassment, threats, or unauthorized actions—that obstructs, disrupts, or hinders a person’s rights, business relations, or legal activities. While common law defines it broadly as impeding another’s, specific statutes often apply to particular fields, such as commerce (e.g., extortion) or telecommunications.”
1 Like
Who cares what the statues says?
Really?
Yes, really. There are lots of statutes that include the word interference. Even the definition that @dderatz posted was labeled #2.