Non-violent Christian protestors want to sing and speak and display signs at a pro-homosexual rally, and they are all arrested, under a hate crime law.
If you go to the link below you can watch a video of the event, showing clearly that they did not do anything violent, they didn't even yell hateful things at homosexuals, in fact, in the video you can see them cooperating with officials. When the police captain asked them to move, they said they would walk with him, and did so. When they were told they wouldnt' be allowed to stay somewhere because it was blocking the business of a booth that had paid for space, they said they would walk away, and did.
The only thing the leader asked was for the homosexual side to take down obstructing signs that prevented them from getting out their message. They were all arrested, and the police chief wouldn't even tell them why, even though the leader of the group clearly asked him "On what grounds are we being arrested?" The police chief said "We'll talk about it later."
They are charged and face 47 years in prison for violating this hate crimes law. Yet, in the debate, where Christian groups protested the law, saying it would impede free religious speech, the proponents of the law said it would not apply to speech, or to religious expression, but only to violent acts.
quote:In November 2002, the Pennsylvania Legislature changed the hate-crimes law, adding "actual or perceived sexual orientation" and "gender or gender identity." AFA says legislators at the time assured concerned Pennsylvanians that the additions would not stifle the free-speech rights of Christians who criticize the homosexual lifestyle.
At the time of the debate, legislators claimed the law would be used only in the case of physical harm.
Rep. Mark Cohen, a Democrat from Philadelphia County, state in 2002: "Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that imaginations are running rather freely in this debate by opponents of this bill. This bill is not – is not – about calling names. This bill is about breaking bones and causing serious injury or death. This bill is not about what ministers or Sunday School teachers say. This bill is about what thugs, hooligans and murderers do. This bill is not about jokes that are offensive or tasteless. This bill is about blood in the streets."
Referring to the charging of the Christians with ethnic intimidation, AFA now shoots back: "Where are the thugs, hooligans and murders? Where is the blood on the streets of Philadelphia?"
Dag, what do you think? It seems to me that these people were engaged in protected speech. They were cooperating with officials, when told to move so they wouldn't block access to a business, they did so. They never yelled back at the other protestors, never acted violently, in fact on the tape I never heard the guy who was arrested raise his voice. I'm having a hard time seeing what they did as a hate crime.
Sure some people may disagree with what these people wanted to say, but I disagree with the KKK, and yet they still have a right to march and demonstrate in the streets. Our constitution says so. As long as they are peaceful, and they are not disrupting businesses or anything else that may violate a local law, they have the right to speak and sing and display signs on a public sidewalk, am I right?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, the prosecution keeps asking for continuances, they apparently aren't ready to proceed with the case. I wonder if they're trying to figure out how to drop the charges gracefully.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe this actually got to the point of charges being pressed. Unless there is something fairly large that is left out of the links here (I can't view the video right now), this is absolutely atrocious.
I certainly don't agree with what the protestors were saying, but I hold their right to say it as almost sacred. I just hope the charges are quickly dropped, with an apology, and that this does not provoke a backlash.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A letter from a homosexual man in support of the Christians who were arrested. Very well said, I respect him coming down on the side of what's right, even if he disagrees with the message the people were presenting.
quote:To Whom It May Concern:
Due to the political nature of my work, please pardon me if I do not supply you with my name or occupation, however, I felt it necessary to email you with a letter of support.
I am a 27 year old gay man from Philadelphia and I have been intently following the news articles regarding your eleven members who were arrested at our annual OutFest celebration in October. What has happened here is an absolute disgrace and I feel that the other members of my so-called "community" have done a grave injustice to not only you and your organization, but to gay people such as myself who feel that regardless of anyone's message, everyone has a right to express their opinion in the public square. I personally do not share the views commonly held within the gay community and personally feel offended that I have been marred by this incident when I fully support your right to show opposition. I find it ludicrous that the members of the gay community, who consistently maintain that they are persecuted and treated unfairly, have gone to great lengths to do to your members the same injustices that have supposedly been done onto them in the past.
posted
First, I do not think a law should forbid the actions of these people as described. However, some of my opinions and observations:
1) What these 11 were doing was extremely distasteful.
2) The video cuts and doesn't show most of the people most of the time; notice that the police both claim to have their own video and have dropped charges against 7. I suspect that those people still charged may have done something additional not shown on the video we see here, though it is quite possible it also should not be illegal.
3) While they may certainly ask for pink boards to be taken down, there's nothing that requires the people holding them to do so.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) What these 11 were doing was extremely distasteful.
To you maybe, but fortunately whether or not something is distasteful isn't a requirement for limiting free speech. These people were quoting scripture - religious speech - which is specifically protected under our constitution.
quote:2) The video cuts and doesn't show most of the people most of the time; notice that the police both claim to have their own video and have dropped charges against 7. I suspect that those people still charged may have done something additional not shown on the video we see here, though it is quite possible it also should not be illegal.
The police have said that they dropped charges against the seven that were not seen as quoting scripture. They did not say the four were violent - they have only talked about what people said If anyone can find a link to the police video, I'd love to see it. But, it's very significant that the police have not mentioned anyone being violent, and the law was supposed to only apply in cases of violence.
quote:3) While they may certainly ask for pink boards to be taken down, there's nothing that requires the people holding them to do so.
That is true. But there is a requirement that the people holding the pink signs not obstruct the movement of the protestors, and that is what they were doing.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I can think of (other than actual violence) that would justify this is if the protestors were making threats. I'm saying they did, just it's a possibility that might justify the charges. Though I would wonder why the police wouldn't release this information if it was true.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it isn't, why do you think I stated what I did at the beginning of my post?
Same as I think the KKK is extremely distasteful, I think what these people did was extremely distasteful, but I support both's rights.
While I'm not aware of the exact legalities, it is my understanding that the police are likely erring on the side of legal caution by not airing the tape.
I did not see them obstructing the movement of the protesters in the linked video, could you point it out (say with a timepoint in the video)?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the beginning when the leader was trying to walk down the sidewalk and the people with the signs were stopping their progress. He even had to ask them to let through a woman who lived in the neighborhood, they wouldn't even let a citizen who was trying to walk down the street pass.
The only time he's seen as being able to walk is when he was with the police captain or chief.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, do you think that Fred Phelps should be allowed to stand outside the church and scream God Hates Fags at the funeral when my (heterosexual) niece (not really a niece, she's my husband's counsin's daughter. We've always just treated her like a niece) dies of AIDS?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Allowed? I don't know if there are any laws against it. Did that really happen, Kayla? If so that is very repellent. I think it is sad when there have to be laws to restrict any offensive thing someone might think of to do. But a counterdemonstration at a demonstration is different from a demonstration at a funeral.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not at her funeral, as she is still alive, but yes, he's done it often. And until you've seen it, or been a horrified funeral goer, I don't think you could understand just exactly how disturbing something like the "counter-demonstration" can be. He has the right to invade one of the most private, excruciating times in a person's life, and then he wants to ruin a celebration day, too?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to say this, Kayla -- and I mean it; I hate to say it -- but, yes, I believe Fred Phelps should be allowed to do it.
And I believe we as a society should see what that kind of loathsome hatred looks like, and turn away from it.
From Belle's description, these protesters were doing nothing wrong, and I fully expect their arrests to be overturned -- with apologies.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, he's the idiot who picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral. But he did it in Lawrence long before that.
From the godhatesfags website.
quote: "WBC engages in daily peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. We display large, colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments, including: GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, NO NOT MOCKED, FAGS ARE NATURE FREAKS, GOD GAVE FAGS UP, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR FAGS, etc... WBC has conducted some 20,000 such demonstrations during the last nine years at homosexual parades and other events (including funerals of impenitent sodomites, like Matthew Shepard).
[WBC is the Westboro Baptist Church.]
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JW's have large, three-day conventions during the summer, globally. The district I'm in is generally assigned to the Tacoma Dome in Tacoma, WA, and most years (depending on which weekend we get assigned to) there are a handful (about three or four) VERY loud, obtrusive protestors. Signs, megaphones, screaming voices, etc... Of course, they cannot come in and disrupt the program, but they can stand outside and yell at people as they walk in, and try to engage the attention of people during lunch. Everyone invariably ignores them and just keeps walking, looking for an area with less noise pollution.
While I used to find them infuriating, then simply irritating, and now just a 'fixture', no matter how I feel about them they are protected by the same laws that allow me to go door-to-door and express my beliefs to people.
In my opinion, an immature person is threatened by an opposing view, and will hope that rules will protect their rights while simultaneously being open to exploitation and remove any element they consider distasteful. A mature person will be grateful that everyone's agenda is - by law - seen as equal and valid and hope that the most noble of the agendas will, ultimately, be the most attractive.
quote: ... "Pennsylvania Christians Face 47 Years in Prison for Reading the Bible in Public," the title most often accorded the e-mail, calls to mind mental images of God-fearing folk rounded up and thrown in jail for quietly partaking of a bit of Scripture as they munched on their noontime sandwiches in a public park before heading back to work. Yet that was not the case of it — the "crime" the eleven were arrested for had nothing to do with Bible reading but everything to do with being disruptive of the peaceable assembly of others to the point that it looked like they were attempting to incite a riot. ... Volunteer OutFest security workers (known as "Pink Angels") surrounded the evangelicals and used whistles to drown out their preaching. They held up pink styrofoam boards to block the protesters from view. The Philadelphia 11 claim these acts violated their right of free speech and point to excerpts from film taken by Enough Said Productions (which had been there that day to shoot a documentary) as proof of their charges. Yet police have a videotape of their own which they say demonstrates the proselytizing Christians were disorderly and did indeed fail to obey the officers' orders. ...
I, too, would like to see the police's tape. On the face of it, I'd defend the right of peaceful protestors. On the other hand, you can't fail to obey police orders and not expect to be arrested. That (in some cases) is the point of a peaceful protest.
I wonder what the full story is. It doesn't sound to me like the Pink Angels were necessarily peaceful, either. Is it claimed that they failed to obey police orders, too, or is the contention that the police were picking on the Christians?
posted
No, you missed my point. The fact that one could want to literally kill them at a funeral pretty much kills your desire to allow free speech anywhere, even as a counter-demonstration at a demonstration.
Ralphie, you are a better person than I. Then again, I'm pretty sure we disagree about the whole door-to-door thing, anyway.
mothertree, I just believe there is a time and place for everything. Maybe if they weren't allowed to protest at funerals, I'd have more tolerance for them at demonstrations. (actually, I have no idea what went on at this demonstration and I've no idea whether or not they deserved to be arrested and don't particularly care one way or the other.) But there is a time and place for everything. No picketing at funerals or weddings. No ringing my door bell at 8 am on Saturday morning. You know, it's the little things that matter. If you leave me alone at funerals, I'm very open to allowing you to demonstrate whenever you want.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ralphie, you are a better person than I. Then again, I'm pretty sure we disagree about the whole door-to-door thing, anyway.
But, see, at some point everyone benefits from the same laws, though they are manifested in different ways.
In the case of the protestors at my conventions, I find their methods to be entirely unattractive. I would never approach one for a discussion, a 'show-down', and I certainly would never be persuaded by one. But they still have a right to try, even if I think they shoot themselves in the foot with their methods.
It's the same thing with door-to-door preaching. Some people may find it heartily unattractive. I can certainly see this, as even I feel bombarded with sales calls and telemarketers, spam e-mail, and (in recent history) door-to-door political campaigning. But they have a right to try. Even if you believe door-to-door campaigners/proselytizers are shooting themselves in the foot with their methods.
Fortunately, saying "no" to another person's method is not against the law, nor is being entirely turned off or even angered by them. Just denying them the right to use it is.
posted
And this discussion is why Bonduca left. The door-to-door people are still intruding into my privacy and I don't like it. But, since Bonduca and Jeff were in that thread before leaving, I learned that all I needed to do was put up a no proselytizing sign. And take a deep breath and back away from the thread. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the same thing with door-to-door preaching. Some people may find it heartily unattractive. I can certainly see this, as even I feel bombarded with sales calls and telemarketers, spam e-mail, and (in recent history) door-to-door political campaigning. But they have a right to try. Even if you believe door-to-door campaigners/proselytizers are shooting themselves in the foot with their methods.
Fortunately, saying "no" to another person's method is not against the law, nor is being entirely turned off or even angered by them. Just denying them the right to use it is.
Ralphie, this is an honest question, and I'm not trying to make a point.
What is your position on the legality of using a spam filter so that the spam never comes into your view? It seems to me that this is a denial of another's method. I don't have a problem with it, but it just struck me that you might.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
There is apparently a longer video that does show some of the stuff that WorldNet doesn't allude to. It was used in the court procedings and that plus the officers' testimony apparently swayed the judge to go to trial with it all rather than throw the charges out.
Having said all that, I think the arrests were probably proper, but the charges (hate crime one especially) seem more severe than the law would allow. The judge obviously thought there was reason to go to trial, though, so I guess the prosecutor was able to make a case for it, at least on the face of it. At least for 4 adults and 1 teen.
I suppose the questions I'd want to ask are these:
1) Were ANY charges warranted?
2) Was there any element of incitement here that might lead one to suspect that these people were deliberately TRYING to get beat up or arrested?
3) Is it law enforcement's job to put up with ANYTHING short of actual physical violence? Do they have the right to order protestors to act in a manner that would help them diffuse a situation?
4) If a police officer orders a protestor to do something (like move to a different area) is that order also an infringement of their First Amendment rights, so that they are perfectly justified in ignoring it?
5) Does lying down in the street constitute free speech?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Is it? I didn't know that. My only memories of the thread are that it was becoming an emotional issue for people, and I backed out (even reading it) pretty early on.
quote: The door-to-door people are still intruding into my privacy and I don't like it. But, since Bonduca and Jeff were in that thread before leaving, I learned that all I needed to do was put up a no proselytizing sign. And take a deep breath and back away from the thread.
I completely understand. Like I said, I can sympathize with your perspective.
In reality, though, my point earlier was not to justify the activity itself, but that I - known to use a method that is not necessarily popular - have taken advantage of the same laws that people who do things I don't particularly like also have the ability to take advantage of.
I think MOST of us use these laws in one way or another, and so when people irk us beyond measure I try to think of it as I expressed above: I can't just think of those freedoms as being advantageous for ME. It helps me be more sympathetic, which gives me the benefit of being less angered or frustrated. I apologize if my point was lost in the illustration.
quote: What is your position on the legality of using a spam filter so that the spam never comes into your view? It seems to me that this is a denial of another's method. I don't have a problem with it, but it just struck me that you might.
Honestly - and this is why you won't see me participate in political threads - I have no opinions on what should or should not be legal. I only deal with what is or is not currently legal. If it is currently legal to block spam, then I say block spam if you'd like. If it is not, then I say that in the land we live in we do not have the advantage of doing so.
I'm totally neutral on the way things 'should or should not be' as represented in law.
Again, my comment on spam was to state that I sympathize if someone does not like the door-to-door method that may feel like just another form of intrusion into their homes. Other things people have to deal with that may feel like intrusions would be sales phone calls and on-line spam. But my sentence was not meant to state a preference.
Possibly - we can't know from either source right now.
quote:2) Was there any element of incitement here that might lead one to suspect that these people were deliberately TRYING to get beat up or arrested?
Again, can't really tell.
quote:3) Is it law enforcement's job to put up with ANYTHING short of actual physical violence? Do they have the right to order protestors to act in a manner that would help them diffuse a situation?
A lot of the civil rights infringement by police is because not infringing can make their life difficult. They don't have to put up with everything short of violence, but generally they don't put up with as much as they should.
quote:4) If a police officer orders a protestor to do something (like move to a different area) is that order also an infringement of their First Amendment rights, so that they are perfectly justified in ignoring it?
An illegal order does not have to be obeyed. Not all orders that would be infringement of free speech are actually illegal. But you disobey at your own risk. The best bet is jury nullification if you make a mistake
quote:5) Does lying down in the street constitute free speech?
Not unless they have a permit.
As an aside, the prosecutor's bar is very low to keep charges from getting tossed by a judge. On federal felonies, they have to get indictments, and in general, the evidence is not looked at by a judge when the indictment is challenged. Just the language in the indictment itself is. Prosecutors could indict Ghandi - they utterly control the grand jury process.
If I'm reading the articles right, this is a federal charge for disobeying local police. Very fishy in and of itself.
posted
Yeah, when I read about this in the Inquirer, it didn't sound anything like the World Net Daily article. I wonder why that is.
From the Inquirer editorial that Bob posted:
quote:By themselves, the arrests might not have generated all that much controversy. On that early-October Sunday, the protesters disobeyed directives from the police, who had reason to fear that the group's bullhorn-broadcast denunciations of homosexuality might trigger a scuffle at the block party, or worse.
No, people should not be arrested for mere exercise of free speech - but when their free speech seems on the edge of provoking possible violence, there's a case to be made for city police taking people into custody simply to calm the situation.
There seems no question that Repent America got its message out - informing gay-event participants that they faced eternal damnation, as well as carrying signs proclaiming "God Abhors You" and the like.
But when the group's leader sat down in the street, refusing to move after being warned by police of imminent arrest, it was no surprise that the cops began hauling protesters away. And probably not a disappointment to the protesters. Isn't that the point of many protests, to attract attention by getting arrested?
These people were being jerks. Not a terribly uncommon thing, but it was borderline illegal in this case. They were countered by the Pink Angels, which, contrary to the descriptions presented, are not some violent homosexual gang, but a group of volunteers who were prepared to deal with protestors by non-violently covering them up, which is both legal and what they did here. The police were called in and they asked the protestors to leave because of the potential for violence breaking out, which again is what would happen in any case were a group was setting out to provoke a violent confrontation with a large, previously approved gathering of people. Some of the protestors resisted, which is certainly their right, but can also lead to criminal charges, which is what happened here.
I think that the extent that the protestors are being prosecuted is excessive, but that doesn't turn this into a situation where they were any less in the wrong or treated as any other group acting that way would have been.
Philadelphia is trying to build an image of a gay-friendly city. These people are getting hit with everything that can be thrown at them in part to further this image. I don't think anyone really thinks that they are going to be convicted of anything other then some minor violations, but the city is making their lives as difficult as they can to make it clear that this is not a place where what they did is accepted or even tolerated. And, to be honest, even leading aside the economic issues, I'd much rather have gay people feel welcome in my city than people like that.
posted
Belle, That letter is almost certainly a fabrication. Do you really think that these people are at all concerned with honesty?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The police were called in and they asked the protestors to leave because of the potential for violence breaking out, which again is what would happen in any case were a group was setting out to provoke a violent confrontation with a large, previously approved gathering of people.
This happens a lot, and is actually very often an infringement. It certainly happens more than it should to mostly left-leaning protestors here in DC. I'm in favor of giving the police lots of leeway in these situations, because violence can break out in an instant. But under existing jurisprudence, this is a civil-rights violation in many, if not most, of the cases it happens in. I doubt the cops were discriminating against Christians so much as giving preference to the group with the permit.
I have no real problem with the arrest, misdemeanor charges, and the like, although I think more police training on what's appropriate is needed.
The only thing I really care about is the use of hate crime legislation, and there's enough activists lawyers around to help them out that I'm sure it will be sorted out. I'd love to see the indictment.
Besides, being a landmark is fun. They should enjoy it while it lasts.
posted
I'm all for giving police greater leeway, as long as abuses are taken care of later. In cases like this, where a group of wack-jobs goes out with the intention of provoking violence, I've got no problem with the police moving in to control the situation.
I'm actually more interested in people's reactions to the egregiously dishonest way that conservative activists have been flogging this case. But, for some reason, I don't think that we'd be able to have a productive conversation about that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably not, since there's little point to discussing it. I've seen so many of these situations flogged by so many different groups across the spectrum that I reserve judgment on these things until the trial. So people with a political ax to grind are grinding it. Might as well discuss the weather.
The hate crime portion deserves to flogged, though, if true. But it needs to be flogged honestly.
I think you're jumping to conclusions about their intent to "provoke violence," though.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
