Second Video Reveals More About Alleged Christian Hate Crime

[CornField]

Prosecutors Accuse Repent America Officials Of Trying To Incite Riot

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

...
Thursday, NBC 10 viewed newly released video taken by the Philadelphia Gay Pride Organization to see if it shines more light on the controversial First Amendment issue.

...

"They're calling people she-men. They're telling them they have a 5 o'clock shadow," said Chuck Volz, of the Philadelphia Gay Pride Organization of what he witnessed.

...

"They were screaming over a bullhorn nasty things in their faces. I think that's fighting words and it could amount to a riot situation," Volz said.

...

"He tries to hide behind the First Amendment and his right to free speech, when really what he's all about is trying to provoke people into violence," (Asst. DA) Ehrlich said.

...

[bloom]

1. In an earlier story

the organizer was quoted as saying that he intended to disobey laws - he was going to do what he was going to do.

[tanyev]

2. 'Cause that's what Jesus was all about--

disobeying laws.

Actually, the only laws I can think of him disobeying off the top of my head are the religious laws followed so obsessively by the Pharisees.

[gratuitous]

16. It's a fuzziness on the part of some civil disobedients

When you engage in civil disobedience, that is, you set out to break the law, you're supposed to be locked up. That's the whole idea of the disobedience. I'm not sure why the bigot with the bullhorn is so surprised to be seeing the inside of a jail cell (if indeed he is surprised). His publicly stated intention was to break the law. He did, and was arrested.

And once they're arrested and charged, the prosecutors have to come up with some legal justification for arresting them. "Incitement to riot" is a well-recognized concept for the abridgement of free speech, with a long history of jurisprudence to back it up. If the law is too vague for enforcement, then it's up to the courts to invalidate the law by declaring it unconstitutional.

But as it stands now, the forms of the law are being observed, and this fellow is at risk for going to jail.

[kweerwolf]

3. "Let he who is without sin ...

... use the bullhorn first." I think that's from the Bible. Or at least something like it. Or as the radical fundies would say "It was in the Bible until some librul monk back in the Dark Ages messed up the translation!"

[Stepup2]

4. It is information

like this when I REALLY wished I knew how to do the "moon" emoticon

If some one knows how, will ya post it here for me....

[Az]

6. Ya mean?

[Stepup2]

7. YEAH!!

Thank you :bounce:

[montana_hazeleyes]

18. That'll

show Randy Moss how it's really done!

[Just Me]

5. An intentional persecution against any body of people IS A HATE CRIME.

And,...when they have accepted that REALITY,...they'll find someone else to STONE in order to overcome their sense of powerlessness and step upon yet another "labelled peoples" to condemn for the sake of,....!!!!

It's just ashame that these people are not guided towards embracing and fighting for all the lives in being instead of STILL being misguided into funnelling all their disappointment and hardships and anger towards the "leaders" who re-cycle disparity.

[orthogonal]

8. This is a terrible denial of civil liberties

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.

[Zenlitened]

9. I believe "fighting words" is a legal concept...

Along the lines of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps some of our legal experts here on DU could explain it.

[LostinVA]

10. It is a denial of the Gay Group's civil liberties

Repent America did not have a permit, the gay group did. RA trespassed. They could have stayed across the street like non-moran counter protesters do... like the people who protest Fred Phelps. THEY denied the gay groups civil liberties. They physically and verbally insulted them, and were very, very aggressive. The video is scary. They are like Brown Shirts. Just forget any kind of hate crime or conspiracy charges -- they did not have their civil liberties trod upon, the other group did. And <gasp> the Philly cops did the right thing! (sorry -- grew up by Philly,and Philly cops aren't known for lovin' the gays).

[orthogonal]

12. Free speech requires no permit

Repent America did not have a permit

Free Americans don't need a permit to exercise their First Amendment rights, nor should they be restricted to a "free speech zone".

If "extremist" Christians can be jailed for their speech, so can "extremist" anti-Bush, anti-war, of pro-civil rights protesters.

[Just Me]

13. Inciting violence against a class of people is a HATE CRIME!!!

If anyone engaged in this kind of conduct against Jewish people or African Americans, their butts would be in jail.

Moreover, hating a criminal regime is NOT a hate crime because this neoCONimperialist regime certainly does NOT fall into a class of citizens requiring protection under the laws of this country. (and, I will add that, the neoCONimperialists get hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to PROTECT them from the possibility of violence)

[orthogonal]

15. They were not inciting violence against the gays

First, you misunderstand what "inciting violence" means in this context.

The Christians were not calling for violence against gays. The charge seems to arise because the police feared that the presence of the Christians would incite violence by the gay attendees at the Pride event.

Second, you need to read the facts of the case. The protesters were on a public street, at a pride event underwritten in part by tax payer dollars, and were told that they couldn't hold up signs or speak when gay counter-protesters were allowed to hold signs and speak.

In other words, the exact sort of things we've been complaining about at Bush rallies.

[Robb]

17. The issuance of a permit to protest is

...itself a continuance of the "fire in a crowded theater" concept. People are given a permit, and often police protection, to allow them to exercise their freedom of speech without endangering themselves -- and more importantly to any governing body, without endangering the general population.

It's precisely because they were on a public street that the permit was issued. And by not playing by the terms of an area that had become subject to permits, the anti-protest folks were blowing it.

So they went away. Exactly what should have happened. I don't see a double standard at all.

[OldVlad]

11. Selective inforcement leads to total enforcement

You are absolutely right, shame on those naive people who think when its the speech we don't want that its ok to overstate the point of saying "fighting words" as an excuse to arrest. This will come back in our faces for being so myopic, you are right, particuarly since we hold less positions in the government now then ever. I do not trust the government to decide what constitutes being a jerk and what should get you locked in a jail cell.

[Just Me]

14. You're into the buddy system, huh. n/t

[cwwbell]

19. It's not about trespassing...

I agree that they had a right to protest. The principal charge, though, as far as I know is under a hate crime law, which I believe is a state law. The charge rests on their speech being determined as hate speech. I wish I were clearer on the details but Philadelphia news stinks. I'll look into it further.