I'm sure some of you have heard the story about the christians getting arrested at the pink angel lesbian convention.  Well, these 11 christians are facing 47 years in prison a piece, in accusation of "hate crimes".  But in a better note, these 11 christians are countersueing.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0034738.cfm - http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0034738.cfm

I forgot the new law, You have the right to freedom of speech unless your a christian, and then your basic rights are taking away from you......

Freedom of Speech is the most overused law suit I've ever heard.

I'll read the article now.

I just hate people playing the Freedom of Speech card, its almost as bad as the race card.

To tell you the truth, I don't give a (hoot) either way.

Homosexuals are people too; we might as well give them their rights.

(Edit: Damn forum filter.)

Of course, using a political website as the only source of a story is never a good idea.  Additional perspectives are always useful.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10381186.htm?1c - http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10381186.htm?1 c

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200412%5CCUL20041216c.html - http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carc hive%5C200412%5CCUL20041216c.html

http://www.365**edited**.com/newscon04/12/121304philCourt.htm - http://www.365**edited**.com/newscon04/12/121304philCourt.ht m

And, I suspect, none of these completely capture the actual event.  It would be wise not to prejudge, in either direction.  That's why we have trials.  Maybe we can keep the band-wagon jumping to a miminum...

(And, BTW, if the law they are charged with breaking is unconstitutional, the trial judge can't do anything about that, but has to convict anyway.  That's what appeals are for.)

EDIT - the darn filter killed the third link.  http://www.365**edited**.com/newscon04/12/121304philCourt.htm - Try this one

EDITEDIT - Grr.  Well, as you probably figured out, the censored part of the URL is g a y.

I sense a giant debate coming. One of which only Clark and a few others will be able to comprehend.

Juggernaut wrote: Freedom of Speech is the most overused law suit I've ever heard.   I'll read the article now.   I just hate people playing the Freedom of Speech card, its almost as bad as the race card.

I agree. Close to everybody that uses it uses it in a different way than that of our founding fathers meant when writing the declaration of independence.

\/ \/ why thank you :)

Since I apparently suck at linking, I'll cut 'n paste.  My apologies for long post:

Evangelists lose ruling in protest at Outfest

A judge refused to throw out the charges. Hearings for 10 of the 11 are scheduled Tuesday.

By Joseph A. Slobodzian

Inquirer Staff Writer

A federal judge yesterday refused to block the local prosecution of 11 Christian evangelists arrested Oct. 10 in a confrontation at the "Outfest" **edited**-pride block party in Center City.

U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker denied in a one-paragraph order the injunction requested last Friday by the American Family Association, a Mississippi-based conservative Christian "family values" group that is defending the 11.

American Family Association attorney Brian Fahling said he would file an emergency appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reverse Tucker's ruling and block the prosecutions.

Preliminary hearings for 10 of those arrested are set for Tuesday in Philadelphia Municipal Court. A separate hearing for a juvenile arrested was set for today, but Fahling said it had been postponed.

Last Friday, Fahling argued that the arrests and prosecution of Repent America director Michael Marcavage and his fellow protesters violated their free-speech rights.

Members of the group were arrested on charges including criminal conspiracy, rioting and ethnic intimidation after a loud, heated confrontation with a group of "Pink Angels" at the Outfest.

Lawyers for the city and District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham argued that Tucker should follow the U.S. Supreme Court's 1971 "Younger doctrine," which tells federal judges not to intervene in state court criminal cases unless there is compelling evidence that the prosecution was brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment.

Fahling said a video of the Oct. 10 confrontation showed Marcavage speaking through a bullhorn while he and his supporters were being shouted down by irate **edited** activists.

City officials said the video did not show the start of the confrontation, when they said Marcavage tried to interrupt a performance with his anti**edited** preaching and then disobeyed a police order to move to the perimeter of the Outfest to avoid the potential for violence.

----------------------------------------

(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) A preliminary hearing will begin Tuesday for 11 evangelists arrested after a confrontation at a **edited** festival.

Repent America director Michael Marcavage and 10 followers were charged with criminal conspiracy, rioting and ethnic intimidation after they attempted to break up the October 10 Outfest **edited** pride block party in Center City.

A motion to block the prosecution was rejected by U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker.

Repent America is represented by the  Mississippi-based American Family Association which is involved in a number of cases across the country opposing **edited** rights. 

AFA attorney Brian Fahling called the arrests "harassment" of Christians and said that the charges violated the protesters' freedom of speech.

Judge Tucker in a single sentence ruling rejected the argument.

The confrontation began when the 11 protestors marched to the front of a stage at Outfest and began to yell out Biblical passages to drown out the events on stage.

Police attempted to get the protestors to move to to an area on the edge of the site.  Instead they went deeper into the **edited** 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 arresting the 11.

"They were not prohibited from preaching," said Karen Brancheau, a lawyer for the District Attorney's Office. "A reasonable request was made to prevent a situation from becoming dangerous to their own safety as well as the safety of the participants."

The "ethnic intimidation" charge caught my attention.  I haven't found any news article listing specifics, but I am guessing that this is the statute:

§ 2710. Ethnic intimidation

(a) Offense defined. - A person commits the offense of ethnic intimidation if, with malicious intention toward the race, color, religion or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, he commits an offense under any other provision of this article or under Chapter 33 (relating to arson, criminal mischief and other property destruction) exclusive of section 3307 (relating to institutional vandalism) or under section 3503 (relating to criminal trespass) or under section 3504 (relating to harassment by communication or address) with respect to such individual or his or her property or with respect to one or more members of such group or to their property.

Nothing about homosexuality there.  So presumably somebody is at least alledging some racial issue as well, or arguing that this fits into the "religion" part.  Who knows.  We just don't have enough information.

But, as pointed out above, freedom to speak does not equate to freedom to speak anywhere you want.  The Klan is welcome to host a rally - just not in the middle of a NAACP rally.

Ok, If the article is 100% accurate, I agree that the people should have the feedom of speech to do what they were doing. Do I agree with what they were doing? No, But the people singing the hyms and protesting have just as much of a right to be there as the homosexuals do.

But.

With charges such as ethnic intimidation, criminal conspiracy and inciting a riot on the table, I get the feeling there is more to this story that what we are being told.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: With charges such as ethnic intimidation, criminal conspiracy and inciting a riot on the table, I get the feeling there is more to this story that what we are being told.

My thoughts exactly.

The original article's source was all about "The Family." So the article is most likely incredibly subjective and witholding of facts. Some of those charges must be substantial enough to hold up in court; however, we shall see as the case goes on.

Everyone would go crazy if I posted an anti war article from the antiwar.com website.

WGP guy wrote: Dune wrote: You can't claim that they deserve to win without knowing the entirity of the case. It's possible that the things they did were illegal (although I'm sure they do not speak for all christians). That's why the case must be pushed through the system first without scrutiny. If nothing was illegally performed, then they will be set free because they deserve to. well, ive seen the story on many web pages, fox (not faux) news, and other stations (I hate the other stations, but I watched this on them)  and I think Ive got the  story

HAHAHAHA!!!! FOX NEWS HAHAHAHA. That station is so right wing, hmmm, and the right wing doesnt like homosexuals. Nice.

Im goin with TyKwan on this one.

:EDIT: keep in mind if I could have voted, I would have voted republican this time. So none of this your a democrat liberal pansy crap.

WGP guy wrote: well, ive seen the story on many web pages, fox (not faux) news, and other stations (I hate the other stations, but I watched this on them)  and I think Ive got the  story

I've searched the web pretty thoroughly for this.  If you are basing your conclusion on the web and TV news (which is always superficial), then I can promise you that you do NOT have all the facts.

The system will play it out.

Juggernaut wrote: Freedom of Speech is the most overused law suit I've ever heard.   I'll read the article now.   I just hate people playing the Freedom of Speech card, its almost as bad as the race card.

nice post, i totally agree.

We don't know whether they had every right to do what they did.  In fact, we don't even know what they did.

As to 47 years - that is almost certainly the maximum permitted sentence for each of the charged crimes combined, and does not consider sentencing guidelines or concurrent service.  There is no way they are getting 47 years.

If they are convicted - big IF - I wager they get no more than 90 days of prison, probably no prison at all.  My guess is a suspended sentence, some parole, and a stern warning from the judge.  Unless, of course, the facts that we do not know are particularly damning.

How rude.

:P

^^^ Ummmm, right.   I don't think I'm going to touch that one.

Anyways, what you don't hear from the almighty major news networks is that facts surrounding the actual charges.
Facts like the Federal Justice worker who advised the officers on the scene as to what charges could be brought against the Christians was part of the **edited** parade.

I hate to jump on the "liberal protestors suck" bandwagon, but it explains many of the dumb charges.

Not correct, tippy.  The articles have said that they were interfering with the scheduled event, and failed to obey police orders to relocate.

There is also that charge of ethnic intimidation that I am curious about...

And this story is overwhelmingly reported on conservative/religious sites.  I had to look hard to find a neutral story like the Philly paper.  The one "g ay-side" story I found was just a repeat of a generic story.

The facts are not yet in on this one, but the available facts, IMO, subtly suggest that the hymn-singers were not all that innocent.

My basic reason:  I am not a conspiracy theorist.  While innocent people may get charged, I generally do not believe that the police/prosecutors/judges are out to "get" anybody.

If somebody is charged with a crime, there is usually a reason.  They may later be found not guilty, but it will take a lot for me to believe that there is some political motivation for criminal charges.  Police and prosecutors are just people doing their jobs.

Secondly, the facts as presented appear to imply that the defendants were not merely standing on the curb singing hymns, but activily trying to interfere with the event  - either by physically inserting themselves, or by selecting particularly inflammatory sermon concepts.

The Klan is welcome to think black people are inferior, and to say so - they just can't do it in the middle of an NAACP rally.  Similarly, you can't go on about how evil homosexuality is at a g.ay rally.  They were (apparently) asked to go to a different area and refused.

People were arrested at both the Democratic and Republican conventions last year - not because their opinions were 'invalid,' but because they were being disorderly about it.

The substance of almost any speech is always ok.  The presentation not necessarily so.

EDIT - but I haven't read the actual charges - I can't find them.  I don't necessarily believe them guilty yet, I am only having a slight leaning in that direction.

tippy_182 wrote: rockerdoode wrote: I'd hate to jump on any band wagon...you shouldt have to have the exact same opinons as everyone else, you should be allowed to have your own.  But what theses bible huggers did was just stupid... Theres been plenty of other things that homosexuals have done, like run in a church throwing condoms.  Were they presecuted for that? No. And Dune, you say conservative websites?  I remember seeing an article from CNN......... And every article weve seen so far hasn't said they were doing anything except singing and reciting verses.

hahahahaha...omg, like, i cant believe you guys are still taking this thread serioulsly after reading that...hahahahaha...

If I was a homo then I'd probably be pretty pissed if the christians came in and did that. If I was in church and **edited**s threw a condom at me then I'd be pretty pissed as well.

There's got to be a reason for the charges, but overexageration is not out of the picture. Do I think it was right for them to do it? no. But, i do believe, they can as long as they do it peacefully. I'm thinking the inciting a riot charge means they said something that might not have been so peaceful.

Clark answered the questions about the legitamacy of the articles. Unfortunately, they aren't very objective. There are many things about the law that citizens do not understand, only what they see on television. Refusing to move to a designated area to practice free speech does violate a few laws. The 47 years is just the possible maximum amount of time that a judge can sentence to those people, but extremely unlikely. Throwing condoms in a church does not constitute a broken law; however, most likely because no charges were made against them by the citizens. There was no law broken, mainly because there is no law on the books saying that people cannot throw condoms in a church, it's just highly inappropriate.

Enos Shenk wrote: WGP guy wrote: Weren't the protests against Bush hate crimes then? Maybe you should ask that question of the mass arrest victims at the time of the republican national convention. Nice skewed viewpoint on that article.

They were Anarchists, Enos.  FAUX News said so.  Besides, protesters make Baby Jeebus cry.

That would be great, OS, except for the concept of checks and balances.  The judiciary exists specifically to override the popular majority when they are wrong.  That is their function.

Pure majority rule led to Nazism in Germany, slavery in the US, and Jim Crow laws in the South.

An independent judiciary is part of what makes this country great.

And, of course, this random rant of OS' has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since I believe we have established that we don't have sufficient facts to judge the case at hand.  But if OS wants to hijack this thread and turn it into one of his random "OS rants about how things were better back in the day and we are going to Hell" threads, that is fine by me...

That sucks.  What part of Kentucky?

Why would you protest anything any way?  It a wast of time just live a happy life and watch tv things are good.

Bunkered wrote: Dune wrote: Clark answered the questions about the legitamacy of the articles. Unfortunately, they aren't very objective. There are many things about the law that citizens do not understand, only what they see on television. Refusing to move to a designated area to practice free speech does violate a few laws. The 47 years is just the possible maximum amount of time that a judge can sentence to those people, but extremely unlikely. Throwing condoms in a church does not constitute a broken law; however, most likely because no charges were made against them by the citizens. There was no law broken, mainly because there is no law on the books saying that people cannot throw condoms in a church, it's just highly inappropriate. Oh yes there was. The same law that the homosexual festival says the Christians did. The whole thing about interrupting a planned event or whatever.

Nope, no ordinance, specifically about that.

popen ant easy wrote: Why would you protest anything any way?  It a wast of time just live a happy life and watch tv things are good.

woah...is the pope back?!?!?!!??!?

AdmiralSenn,

Please tell me how the protestors got the log out of their eyes so they could help their quarry with the mote in theirs.  After 39 years of reasonably steady church going I still haven't manage to dislodge mine. 

AdmiralSenn wrote: [QUOTE=.Ryan]     EDIT: And Badsmitty, usually political correctness refers to the attempt not to offend anyone. Nowadays it's more towards removing possible offenses. Can't have a Star of David up, might offend someone. Can't have a Nativity scene up, same reason. Interestingly, it doesn't apply to Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, atheists, Hindus, etc. Some white people are offended by being called 'cracker' by blacks, but call them the forum-inappropriate n-word and the white person gets charged with hate crimes.

Oh?  I think that politically, the things I mentioned paid quite handsomely.  God is now in the White House, we blew up a bunch of kids in Iraq this very morning by dropping a 500 pound bomb on the wrong house and only those who don't love our Heroes will protest it and marriage was protected from those filthy **edited**s by voting in constitutional amendments in 11 states.

I would definitely protest one military mistake. Especially when kids are killed.

Yeah, both of those "newly liberated countries" are sure loving us for being there and freeing them. Just like Korea (If there were protesters) and Vietnam, the protesters are seen as "unpatriotic." It should be the job of the media to report on the bad news and question the authority of the government, or else we'd be living on a state much like 1984.

There is nothing wrong with being a soldier, it's not their decision to invade a country. However, showing the downside of war should never be complained about, because war is not accidental, at least here, it was created. Therefore, it should be the job to show the affects of it whatever they may be. It's true there is a lack of positive information coming from the wars, but then again, "liberating" a country and forcing a different style of government onto them will never win hearts and minds.