Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2].
I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it.
> than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE
This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor.
> Federal charges are appropriate where federal law is violated, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal government has the right to bring them.
And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed.
> "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees.
They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution.
> If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response?
Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
zahlman|1 month ago
[deleted]
hoten|1 month ago
Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2].
I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it.
> than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE
This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor.
[1] https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF|29 days ago
And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed.
> "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees.
They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution.
> If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response?
Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?