D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Can't say that I agree with this, and you are justifying it by calling it something less than it was.

You get what you tolerate, and I don't think we should tolerate mobs attacking and disrupting church services, which, objectively, is what this was. There are laws against it, and they should be enforced because these idiots who invaded the church service need to know that their illegal acts will be punished or they will escalate. Their civil rights to a speedy and fair trial should be protected, but you have state officials who are basically encouraging this kind of madness so it is appropriate for the federal government to act.

---

I don't see an attack here, but if I'm wrong, so be it. I'm just saying I'm wary. We have a Bill of Rights because we know government will also escalate if given free rein.

---

The law in question does not require a person to throw a punch to be either criminally or civilly liable. Without question the civil rights of individuals can and should be protected even when they are charged with a crime and they violated a law that has been on the books for 30-plus years. Intruders should not be able to do intimidate with impunity because (1) they will escalate from intimidation in the pews to violence both in the pews and in the streets.

---

"Attack" was your word. I'll defer to the case law as to whether there's clear evidence of a physical threat or obstruction. One thing I'm pretty sure about is that if it had happened at an abortion clinic, no one here would be making these claims.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Can't say that I agree with this, and you are justifying it by calling it something less than it was.

You get what you tolerate, and I don't think we should tolerate mobs attacking and disrupting church services, which, objectively, is what this was. There are laws against it, and they should be enforced because these idiots who invaded the church service need to know that their illegal acts will be punished or they will escalate. Their civil rights to a speedy and fair trial should be protected, but you have state officials who are basically encouraging this kind of madness so it is appropriate for the federal government to act.

---

I don't see an attack here, but if I'm wrong, so be it. I'm just saying I'm wary. We have a Bill of Rights because we know government will also escalate if given free rein.

---

The law in question does not require a person to throw a punch to be either criminally or civilly liable. Without question the civil rights of individuals can and should be protected even when they are charged with a crime and they violated a law that has been on the books for 30-plus years. Intruders should not be able to do intimidate with impunity because (1) they will escalate from intimidation in the pews to violence both in the pews and in the streets.

---

"Attack" was your word. I'll defer to the case law as to whether there's clear evidence of a physical threat or obstruction. One thing I'm pretty sure about is that if it had happened at an abortion clinic, no one here would be making these claims.

---

If protesters went into a clinic and yelled at the patients and personnel, there would be division on here. If the protesters remained outside, it is different.

If the protesters at the church came in and sat in the pews without yelling it would be different.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam -- Trump is already looking for ways to change the ethnic makeup of the immigrant population. As far as illegals, don't be surprised if he prioritizes deporting non-whites while being more lenient with whites.

True

---

Where do you guys come up with these wacky conspiracy theories?

---

From Republicans "White women have more children and we will keep out people of color."

---

I can glean the content, but from where do you keep getting the weird conspiracies.

---

Straight from the white supremacist propaganda

---

Maybe get new friends?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Can't say that I agree with this, and you are justifying it by calling it something less than it was.

You get what you tolerate, and I don't think we should tolerate mobs attacking and disrupting church services, which, objectively, is what this was. There are laws against it, and they should be enforced because these idiots who invaded the church service need to know that their illegal acts will be punished or they will escalate. Their civil rights to a speedy and fair trial should be protected, but you have state officials who are basically encouraging this kind of madness so it is appropriate for the federal government to act.

---

I don't see an attack here, but if I'm wrong, so be it. I'm just saying I'm wary. We have a Bill of Rights because we know government will also escalate if given free rein.

---

The law in question does not require a person to throw a punch to be either criminally or civilly liable. Without question the civil rights of individuals can and should be protected even when they are charged with a crime and they violated a law that has been on the books for 30-plus years. Intruders should not be able to do intimidate with impunity because (1) they will escalate from intimidation in the pews to violence both in the pews and in the streets.

---

"Attack" was your word. I'll defer to the case law as to whether there's clear evidence of a physical threat or obstruction. One thing I'm pretty sure about is that if it had happened at an abortion clinic, no one here would be making these claims.

---

If the protesters at the church came in and sat in the pews without yelling it would be different.

---

Not for purposes of the FACE Act. Yelling is protected speech.

The statute doesn't deal in figurative language. It specifically defines interference as restricting a person's freedom of movement.

Protected speech is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, which can and should be enforced. It is expressly not prohibited by the FACE Act.

What the FACE Act Prohibits
Force & Threats: Using or threatening force to intimidate or injure patients, providers, or staff.
Physical Obstruction: Blocking entrances, doorways, or pathways to clinics.
Property Damage: Intentionally damaging facilities providing reproductive health services.
Recording without Consent: Intentionally recording individuals at clinics without consent, with intent to intimidate.
What the FACE Act Protects (First Amendment)
The Act is intended to be content-neutral and does not prohibit peaceful, non-obstructive activities like chanting, praying, or holding signs, as long as they don't involve force, threats, or physical obstruction.

"Physical obstruction" is the language used as well as "intimidation."

Protesters cannot block entrance or exit - physical obstruction

Protesters cannot disrupt the purpose of the clinic through intimidation or vandalism - physical obstruction

Protesters can peacefully chant whatever is not threatening - staying out of the way outside is ok.

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

---

Of course you don't like how they're doing things, but you damned sure don't have any suggestions on effective alternative methods, just like all your bluster about de-escalation when all you could come up with is, "dey shoulda asked dem to leave!"

---

So, how have we done it in the past? Past Presidents have done this for decades without what we are seeing now. There has to be a nuance and it can't be to the point where it becomes a battlecry. Masked ICE Agents running people down is a battlecry.

Focus on the Chinese and the Criminals. Not some poor waitress just trying to make a buck.

---

Yeah you are right. No president in history sent armed federal agents to forcefully get a child to be sent back to his home country….. oh wait. Clinton did…..

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Can't say that I agree with this, and you are justifying it by calling it something less than it was.

You get what you tolerate, and I don't think we should tolerate mobs attacking and disrupting church services, which, objectively, is what this was. There are laws against it, and they should be enforced because these idiots who invaded the church service need to know that their illegal acts will be punished or they will escalate. Their civil rights to a speedy and fair trial should be protected, but you have state officials who are basically encouraging this kind of madness so it is appropriate for the federal government to act.

---

I don't see an attack here, but if I'm wrong, so be it. I'm just saying I'm wary. We have a Bill of Rights because we know government will also escalate if given free rein.

---

The law in question does not require a person to throw a punch to be either criminally or civilly liable. Without question the civil rights of individuals can and should be protected even when they are charged with a crime and they violated a law that has been on the books for 30-plus years. Intruders should not be able to do intimidate with impunity because (1) they will escalate from intimidation in the pews to violence both in the pews and in the streets.

---

"Attack" was your word. I'll defer to the case law as to whether there's clear evidence of a physical threat or obstruction. One thing I'm pretty sure about is that if it had happened at an abortion clinic, no one here would be making these claims.

---

If the protesters at the church came in and sat in the pews without yelling it would be different.

---

Not for purposes of the FACE Act. Yelling is protected speech.

---

Not when it is inside the church. Also, certain words can be restricted in certain situations.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The statute doesn't deal in figurative language. It specifically defines interference as restricting a person's freedom of movement.

---

No it doesn't.

Intimidation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

It's amazing TDS has rotten brains to such a degree that they're not simply condemning radicals attacking a church service. They want people fired for "misgendering" but this is acceptable.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Given the location (and content) of the yelling, it is very likely that intimidation is exactly what was intended. Whether it would apply directly in a case like this, the concept of libel per se and libel per quod comes to mind. Even if there were not explicit threats being yelled (We're going to kill you!), invading that space at that time with that conduct is, by that alone, intimidation.

---

Unlikely. This is very much how the law is not meant to be applied. We don't want to chill free speech in cases where there's ambiguity or doubt.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

No where in the law does it say it has to be a physical threat.

What it does say is intimidation.

So again you are just flat out lying to make your fellow leftists not appear as bad.

---

He raised the issue of threat. We've also discussed intimidation.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The statute doesn't deal in figurative language. It specifically defines interference as restricting a person's freedom of movement.

---

No it doesn't.

Intimidation.

---

Again, already addressed. The issue in this post was "an attack on this church's ability to exercise their freedom of religion," i.e. interference.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

No where in the law does it say it has to be a physical threat.

What it does say is intimidation.

So again you are just flat out lying to make your fellow leftists not appear as bad.

---

He raised the issue of threat. We've also discussed intimidation.

---

Sorry you don't get to dismiss it that easily. The law say intimidation and this clearly is intimidation so this clearly is a violation of the face act.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The statute doesn't deal in figurative language. It specifically defines interference as restricting a person's freedom of movement.

---

No it doesn't.

Intimidation.

---

Again, already addressed. The issue in this post was "an attack on this church's ability to exercise their freedom of religion," i.e. interference.

---

Which this clearly was.

And you saying "it was discussed" does not address the fact that you are dismissing it and refusing to accept that this was clearly a violation of the face act.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Protected speech is any speech covered by the First Amendment. Whether it's allowed in a given place is another question. It is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, however, the FACE Act cannot be construed in a way that prohibits protected speech. That's why state charges are appropriate here and federal charges probably are not.

---

Going inside a clinic or a church and yelling at the staff/patients or staff/congregants for the purpose of intimidating them is unlikely to constitute "protected speech."

---

No, but you would need to prove it was done for that purpose. Yelling is not intimidation or a threat per se.

---

Yes it is.

---

Incorrect.

The fact we're having this silly debate says more about the MAGA mindset than anything else. We all agree that the behavior was wrong and should be punished. But you just have to pick a fight with anyone who goes less than 100% scorched earth on free speech. I can't accuse you of not following in The Leader's footsteps.

---

Lol. This shows how much TDS has rotted your brain. If you spent even a second following my posts you would know that I am no MAGA and spend plenty of time criticizing Trump.

This has NOTHING to do with Trump.

These terrorists, err I mean protestors, stormed a church. Which is a clear violation of federal law. And a clear violation of first amendment rights. A person's first amendment rights to assemble or speech do not override another person's rights.

If this had been a mosque or abortion clinic then the left would be screaming. It was a church so they are ok with it. Which is evidence by your deflection to Trump and maga on an issue that has 0 to do with either of them.

🚨 JUST IN: Former “Sunday Night Football” sideline reporter Michele Tafoya is running for U.S. Senate in Minnesota as a Republican.pic.twitter.com/8iDUn7hO73

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) January 21, 2026

Group of white liberal women scream at a black ICE agent, call him a race traitor.

"How does it feel to be a race traitor?"

"You guys tried to detain your own person."

"You have the reading level of a f*cking 8th grader."

Yikes!pic.twitter.com/ZFLD18GJGw

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 20, 2026

Jack Bauer said:

---

Group of white liberal women scream at a black ICE agent, call him a race traitor.

"How does it feel to be a race traitor?"

"You guys tried to detain your own person."

"You have the reading level of a f*cking 8th grader."

Yikes!pic.twitter.com/ZFLD18GJGw

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 20, 2026

---

AWFUL at work............

- UF

D!

{ sipping coffee }

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam -- Trump is already looking for ways to change the ethnic makeup of the immigrant population. As far as illegals, don't be surprised if he prioritizes deporting non-whites while being more lenient with whites.

True

---

Where do you guys come up with these wacky conspiracy theories?

---

From Republicans "White women have more children and we will keep out people of color."

---

I can glean the content, but from where do you keep getting the weird conspiracies.

---

Straight from the white supremacist propaganda

---

Maybe get new friends?

---

OR call out racism.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam -- Trump is already looking for ways to change the ethnic makeup of the immigrant population. As far as illegals, don't be surprised if he prioritizes deporting non-whites while being more lenient with whites.

True

---

Where do you guys come up with these wacky conspiracy theories?

---

From Republicans "White women have more children and we will keep out people of color."

---

I can glean the content, but from where do you keep getting the weird conspiracies.

---

Straight from the white supremacist propaganda

---

Maybe get new friends?

---

OR call out racism.

---

Mirror time again?