Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Christian Arrested in California for Reading the Bible in Public

I'd like to go to the same spot and read from the Qur'an. Let's see what happens.

49 comments:

Elinea said...

you know what his brings to my mind ? the men at the wall in Jerusalem in the years of the Tribulation - scary though, but just like those men, these men today, on our own century, are being persecuted for preaching -- give me the shivers

Fisher said...

Where did this arrest take place? Was it public property? I've had brothers do the same thing in public sidewalks up here in Canada and so far that hasn't happened to them... yet.

Radical Moderate said...

I have always said the DMV in IL, is a Godless place. Now it looks like the DMV in Cali, is just as Godless. Amazing

Bartimaeus said...

I am left speechless. It is now against the law tho read the bible in a oublic place. But is interesting what law did he break?

Is the ALLU going to defend this man on this one?

Radical Moderate said...

Honestly I'm shocked, really I am. No reason for that.

I heard people laughing as he was arrested, I wonder if some of those standing in line went up and filed a complaint.

Now I will say this, I would of chosen different scripture to read to those waiting in line at the DMV early in the morning.

For instance the Sermon on the Mount I think would of been more appropriate and needed in that situation.

Lets face it, most of us would rather go to the dentist then the DMV.

Thats all I'm saying :)

wboles said...

What was really sad? You could hear some of the people laughing as the officer was cuffing the man.

donna60 said...

Could someone talk me through the process of taking a video and moving it to another spot, so that anyone else at the new spot can click on it and watch it too?

People on Soda Head do it all of the time, and there are some videos here I would like them to see.

APB said...

its getting worse !!
when Muslims do that - everyone else is scared so no harm done.

when atheists do that - they are called intelligent.

when we Christians do that- we are not only called foolish but also arrested!!

i thought America was the land of the free .. At least in India we dont get arrested for speaking in public.

Radical Moderate said...

APB

You said...
"when we Christians do that- we are not only called foolish but also arrested!!"

That is what the bible says
"To the unbeliever the cross is foolishness"

Wayne said...

he was in the wrong...

velvethammer said...

"I'd like to go to the same spot and read from the Qur'an. Let's see what happens."

Oh please do and videotape it! I'm no expert but, would it not be helpful in the Christian mans defense?? That is if you are left alone. Which is the likely outcome.

Brian said...

I would be just as mad if it was a muslim or another faith group getting arrested. This country needs to stop taking away the freedom of speech. Every time I see this it makes me want to go and do it as well just to show they can arrest us but not silence us.

A man with some face paint, Riding a horse in front of an army once said, They can take our lives but they will never take our freedom.

Brian said...

I used to attend a calvary chapel so I know they are far from a radical group.

susanballou said...

Please explain to me HOW these people were a "captive audience". As far as I know, I'm allowed to leave the DMV anytime I want to.

Ugh, stupid, stupid people.

simple_truth said...

If anyone wants to read the filed complaint, follow the link.

It's very difficult to understand the first officer's actions. Honestly, if the officer doesn't communicate clearly right away what the issue is and give the accused a chance to respond, he is not doing his job in the first place. Arresting someone without a reasonable acknowledgement of any wrongdoing is absurd. It would be no different than if the person was standing there looking at the birds in the sky and suddenly he was cuffed. Any sensible officer would take the time to explain the situation before attempting an arrest in those circumstances.

If an officer approached me in that way, I would try to resist arrest and inform that officer that he or she has no reasonable grounds to arrest me unless he or she could communicate to me what my violation was. If they persist in not telling me, I would inform them that I would persue legal actions against them and their department.

leah said...

I find it interesting that the first person to tell them to disperse was a black man.


Now,before anyone shouts RACIST at me, think back to the days when blacks legally publicly assembled (as our friends in the video) on public property. If memory serves, 187 black protesters had their convictions overturned by the Supreme Court when they were wrongfully arrested.


If ANY person should have encouraged these men of God to exercise their freedom, it should have been the black man who, judging by the video, was probably old enough to remember Selma.


This is the hypocrisy of liberalism.

Roger said...

Sorry folks. The bible reading was done in a public area with a 'captive' audience. People had no choice to wait in line for the service. Therefore, the reader is definitely in the wrong on this one. If I was in that line, I would of complained.

characterbuilder said...

The officer said, you are not allowed to preach to a "captive audience".

Does anyone know if this is a city ordinance in Hemet?

Was he preaching on State property?

Blogger said...

It wasn't the fact that he was reading from a bible, but he was obviously creating a public nuisance. I would have been annoyed and embarrassed (since I'm a christian) if I were standing in line waiting peacefully. People shouldn't have The Word forced on them like that.

Putra said...

You know what? here in Indonesia, Jakarta city, Golden Triangle District where skyscrapers huddled together, we have white-collar part time evangelists reading bible to the muslims white-collars whom were going to mosque for their Friday Prayer and none been arrested by the police.

Bartimaeus said...

I think we better get used to the fact that Christ, Christians,and Christianity are under attak. It is only going to get worse.

Both United States and Canada were founded on Christian pricipals. Both United States and Canada have abandoned those princials and embrased secular humanism. Secular Humanism will colapes like a cheap suitcase under the Islam.

The rise of Islam is the judgement of God our our two nations because we have forsaken the God of the Bible and embrased foriegn gods.

Joe Bradley said...

Riddle Me This! Why does the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Leroy Baca, PAY HIS DEPUTIES WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ATTEND ISLAMIC SERVICES, yet in the next county over, Riverside County in which Hemet is situate, They are arresting Christians for preaching in the DMV parking lot???

http://potrs.org/LASD/

Reese said...

Why have they not been arrested for preaching at the courthouse?..this is assuming they are preaching at the courthouse..he said they had a ministry there. The courthouse seems to be a much more captive audience.

Bartimaeus said...

Lets review what happened here
1 one guys is reading in a loud voice from the Bible.

2 Chuck the security guard tells he he has to move on and is ignored.

3 Officer Barny Fife comes along grabs a "BOOK' from the gu reading and say you under arrest for preaching. And Tells the other guys to move on for stanig there. They are not reading or saying anything.

Mow the question is what law was he breaking?

Joe Bradley said...

Putra,

Thank God that you live in Jakarta City, Indonesia rather than Dearborn, Michigan. They persecute Christian in Dearborn.

nada said...

I interviewed Pastor Brett and his lawyer on my radio show yesterday. Just go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/acmedia and see the featured episode. If you don't want to wait for the interview, scroll to 18 min into the show and then listen. Both Brett and his lawyer Jennifer Monk said some interesting things.

nada said...

I interviewed Pastor Brett and his lawyer Jennifer Monk on my Active Christian Media show yesterday. If you go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/acmedia and see the Featured show, and then scroll to the 17 min mark, you'll begin to hear the interview. I had to wait for them to both get online so the first 15 min is Messianic praise music, which you may also enjoy. Brett shares about how long they have been evangelizing, why they video tape what they do and his fear now, as a result of this incident. Jennifer addressed my question concerning the potential this could be a hate crime by a homosexual cop, as well as gave guidelines on what our rights are. I find this an outrageous story personally, which is why I dedicated two shows to it. The show previous is my commentary and the reaction of some in the Christian community who have issues with how Brett and his friend did ministry. - Stacy Harp, President Active Christian Media

P.S. I have also invited you guys on my show but never received a response to my inquiry. So if you're ever available and want to come on, let me know!

Bfoali said...

I would be opposed to them being arrested had they read the bible in the KJV.

Just kidding, horrible thing, really is. I really love Christians, they are so nice, and kind, and sweet. They really believe what they do is right, and they show such kindness in dealing.

Samuel Han said...

I'm totaly shocked, This is happening in the coutry united states where christian beliefs were foundation for the constitution. Officer doesn't answer the question "what law was he breaking?" The pastor was arrested without clear explanation of reason for arresting. The end time is near the judgement day is coming

Resident said...

Dearborb Mi. has the call to prayer blaring over speakers, I would considered that a infrigement on my rights.

No Compromise said...

"Captive audience"? No such thing under the 1st Amdt of the Constitution or the state constitutions!! The scoffers will one day see what real Expression is someday!

Peter said...

I can understand if people don't want to be yelled at while standing in line. But if that was the problem, the police officer should have just asked the gentleman to take a few steps back or to lower his voice a bit.

At the very least the police officer should have told him what law he was supposedly breaking.

Joe Bradley said...

Hello Peter,

The cop didn't know what law was being broken and he was making them up as he went along.

Ultimately, the filed charge was Penal Code Section 602.1(b), Interfering with a lawful business which the District Attorney refused to prosecute.

The problem with this is that the "Lawful Business" was the Cal. DMV which would not open until almost 1/2 hour AFTER the arrest.

The cop was VERY badge heavy and was clearly playing to the audience of the people waiting in line. Now he must play to a, more critical, audience of a Federal jury. I don't think he will do as well.

Kristofer said...

I am with the police officer on this one. This was a captive audience , they were not given a reasonable opportunity to remove themselves from his speech. You cannot force speech on people.

Joe Bradley said...

Kristofer, if that were the case, then why didn't the cop charge the pastor with "preaching to a captive audience"? Is that law even in the California Penal Code?

Kristofer said...

Joe

The closest offenses for what the pastor did would be disturbing the peace or disrupting business. Now preaching to a captive audience does commit the above crimes.

I do not think the officer articulated his reasons well I will say that now.

If I had been the police officer I would have done the following.

First I would have told the pastor to stop. That is it.

If he asked why I would explain to him that he is harassing people because he is preaching to a captive audience, they cannot leave the scene.

Harassing people is disturbing the people.

Forcing people to leave the scene of the DMV is harassing a California Business.

Those are both crimes.

Like I said though I would have explained this to the pastor and gave him a chance to stop. Notice I am not saying he has to leave the scene, he simply has to stop.

If he refused to stop after explaining the above to the pastor I would then arrest him as he has committed two crimes.

I would support the pastor if this had been a public park because people are free to walk away.

I would have supported the pastor if he was simply handing out tracks, people are free to decline them.

But he was forcing people to either leave the DMV and not conduct necessary business or listen to his speech which many people obviously found to be obnoxious. Do you see the problem here?

Imagine it is Nov 2012 and you are standing in line to vote. A Radical Muslim decides that this would be a perfect time to lecture on the glories of Islam and Jihad. You can either listen to his speech or vote. Do you think that would be fair? I suspect you would side with the police then.

Do I think this was handled poorly? Yes

Do I think charges were necessary? No

Do I think the pastor was completely out of line? Yes

If the pastor does this again I would 100% support his arrest and charges being filled. This is a warning.

I would treat anyone acting this way the same way. I can careless if they are a Muslim, Hindu, Atheist etc. You cannot force your views on others.

Kristofer said...

The fact that the DMV was not opened yet is irrelevant. The people were standing in line awaiting it's opening to engage in official state business.

Think of my voting scenario. Would it matter one whit if you got in line 1/2 hour early? Does that change your expressed purpose of voting? Can you realistically leave and vote at the same time?

Everyone here is so caught up defending the pastor they forget the rights of the people being harassed by the pastor.

Steve and Sarah said...

Sorry, the guy reading the Bible was wrong in this case. You say, "Hey, free speech!" All rights exist in tension with other rights: namely, in this case the right to peace (ever heard of disturbing the peace?)

What did Jesus teach us? To love others as we love ourselves. So let's try this shoe on ourselves: If someone were reading the Qu'ran or bhagavad gita while I was forced to listen (especially at the DMV, where you NEVER want to lose your place in line), I would feel MY rights were being trampled on. To be honest, I'd be "pissed." Even if the reader "technically" had the right to read the Qu'ran, I would still feel very annoyed, and would hardly feel inclined to listen.

Just because it's the Bible in this case doesn't make the action right.

Listen, I have preached in public for Christ: Once on my college campus quadrangle (sort of like a park area) and once in a public park. Both were spaces one expects to hear spontaneous public lectures--and were places where people could choose to ignore me if they wanted.

Ask yourself, was the a normally socailly acceptable place for people to hear a public lecture?

No.

I blame an unwise Christian who did something perhaps out of compulsion. You can't be egregious and then turn around and say, "Persecution" because want to see THEIR rights NOT to have the peace disturbed by you.

I will continue to proclaim Christ; but I will do so out of love, and love does not behave unseemly.

His case is WHOLLY different from David and Nabeel's where they merely wanted to ask questions of people in a public form and at a table that, in fact, asked for questions. They were truly being persecuted for merely doing what was acceptable socially for the space and situation. They were being persecuted WHOLLY for the message, not because they pinned people down in some inconvient way.

Joe Bradley said...

Kristofer,

You state, "The closest offenses for what the pastor did would be disturbing the peace or disrupting business. Now preaching to a captive audience does commit the above crimes."

Disturbing the Peace is a very common charge and yet the officer expressed his opinion that "Preaching To A Captive Audience" was "not-allowed" and still failed to arrest the pastor for disturbing the peace rendering his allegation merely opinion. Instead his charge of choice was Section 602.1. (b) of the California Penal Code*.


You go on to state, "Imagine it is Nov 2012 and you are standing in line to vote. A Radical Muslim decides that this would be a perfect time to lecture on the glories of Islam and Jihad. You can either listen to his speech or vote. Do you think that would be fair? I suspect you would side with the police then."

Do Muslims refrain from blaring their "Call To Prayer" over public address systems simply because it's voting day? I don't think so.

You go on to state. "I would treat anyone acting this way the same way. I can care less if they are a Muslim, Hindu, Atheist etc. You cannot force your views on others."

Where, then, would you draw the line? Would the deprivation of Constitutional Rights also apply to two people, standing in line at the DMV discussing Biblical issues if they were being overheard by others in the line who took offense? Where, in your opinion, does discussion end and preaching begin? Where shall we draw the dividing line as to where our Constitutional rights begin and end?

You go on to state:

"The fact that the DMV was not opened yet is irrelevant. The people were standing in line awaiting it's opening to engage in official state business."

It seemed to be pretty important to the California State Legislature who wrote that the agency must be "open to the public" into the law. They also acknowledged the exemption of Constitutionally protected activity (para. C-2) from the law.

Steve and Sarah, please read my answer to Kristofer.

Do I find Pastor Mackey's actions unwise - Yes I do and I, like you, would have utilized a different forum, however, none of us sits on the United States Supreme Court and none of us had a hand in writing the Constitution so our opinion and five bucks could get us a coffee at Starbucks.

*http://potrs.org/CHPAntiChrist/

Kristofer said...

When you have to misrepresent the arguments of those who disagree with you, you know your arguments are very weak. I already said the officer handled this poorly.

Lets play true or false.

People were standing in line to engage in official state business . TRUE .

The pastors speech was directed at everyone and there was no way to avoid his speech unless they left the line. TRUE.

The speech given by the pastor was clearly unwelcomed by an audience who could not leave. TRUE

The pastor was asked to stop by an appropriate authority. TRUE

Forcing your views on a captive is NOT protected by the US Constitution. TRUE

Therefore the pastor was in violation of the law and deserved to be arrested. More and more I am wishing charges had been pressed with this case.

Let's answer your questions now

Where, then, would you draw the line?

KK The line is drawn on the rights of others.

Would the deprivation of Constitutional Rights also apply to two people, standing in line at the DMV discussing Biblical issues if they were being overheard by others in the line who took offense?

KK No Constitutional rights were deprived from the pastor. In your above scenario it would be inappropriate to arrest those two people because I do not have an reasonable expectation of not overhearing other people's conversation. They are, unlike the pastor not forcing their views on others. Complete false analogy.

Where, in your opinion, does discussion end and preaching begin?

KK Preaching begins when you try to force others into the conversation.

Where shall we draw the dividing line as to where our Constitutional rights begin and end?

KK Your rights end the moment they infringe on the rights of others. The pastor infringed on the rights of everyone in that audience.

What does " open to the public" have to do with the fact that people are awaiting a public service and cannot leave.

Your argument from a call to prayer is a false analogy. No one is forcing you to pray. Also such religious practices are historically protected unless you wish to ban the ring of church bells.

The pastor was 100% in the wrong and the only reason charges were probably not pressed was cause the cop did not perform the arrest well. I wish he had.

Do you think it is legal to force your views on others in a public forum?

Joe Bradley said...

When you have to misrepresent the arguments of those who disagree with you, you know your arguments are very weak. I already said the officer handled this poorly.

JB - My points were NOT misrepresented and I never disputed your opinion regarding the officer's handling of the situation. You have already stumbled out of the starting gate.

Therefore the pastor was in violation of the law and deserved to be arrested. More and more I am wishing charges had been pressed with this case.

JB - Which law??? There were no charges pursued by the Deputy DA.

KK No Constitutional rights were deprived from the pastor. In your above scenario it would be inappropriate to arrest those two people because I do not have an reasonable expectation of not overhearing other people's conversation. They are, unlike the pastor not forcing their views on others. Complete false analogy.

JB - Completely TRUE analogy. The only thing that changes for the two scenerarios is the volume of the speech. If the two people were talking LOUDLY in line it could be construed to be preaching.

KK Preaching begins when you try to force others into the conversation.

JB - I saw no evidence that the preacher was trying to force anyone into the conversation, he was merely reading from the bible. I suspect had he been reading from Popular Mechanics you would not be objecting so ardently.

KK Your rights end the moment they infringe on the rights of others. The pastor infringed on the rights of everyone in that audience.

JB - What Constitutional rights are those?

What does " open to the public" have to do with the fact that people are awaiting a public service and cannot leave.

Jb - Once again it is in the law that the officer sought to enforce against the preacher. It was an "eleement of the crime" that needed to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the prosecution at trial. Clearly the prosecution believed it could NOT be proven to that standard.

Your argument from a call to prayer is a false analogy. No one is forcing you to pray. Also such religious practices are historically protected unless you wish to ban the ring of church bells.

JB - No one was forcing those in the line to pray. I agree on the constitutional protection, just as street corner preaching has, historically, been a constitutionally protected activity.

The pastor was 100% in the wrong and the only reason charges were probably not pressed was cause the cop did not perform the arrest well. I wish he had.

JB - NOPE, the cop was 100% in the wrong and the charges were, probably, not pressed because the Deputy DA didn't want to be told by a Federal Judge, on appeal, that he was wrong.

Do you think it is legal to force your views on others in a public forum?

JB - The preacher was forcing his views on no one. All present had the right to either accept or reject what he had to say. If you want a truer analogy of forcing ones views on another, read Chapter 9 Verse 5 of the Quran.

Kristofer said...

You just do not get it JB but everyone has rights in the US including non Christians. You always seem to be silent on my example of the Mullah preaching at you in a voting line. I wonder why :)

The pastor in question was harassing everyone in that DMV line. He was forcing his views on them. It would be wrong if he did it with a Bible or a copy of Popular Mechanics. It is obvious from the cheers that went up when he was arrested that his preaching was unwelcome. None one has a right to force others to listen to their views period!

Of course you simply say he was reading the Bible, but of course it is obvious to any remotely objective person that he was reading the Bible aloud with the intention of preaching at a captive audience. If he had just read the Bible silently or just quietly this would not be a problem but that doesn't work in forcing his views on a captive audience now does it.

I am going to make this simple. If I am standing in line to conduct official state business I do not want to hear some idiotic preacher shouting from the Bible, I do not want to hear some crazy Mullah lecturing from the Qu'ran and I really do not want to her some twit freethinker shouting Richard Carrier's latest nonsense.

Those people could not leave JB. Like a typical Christian you are only concerned with your sides " right" to harass people but you do not care one iota for the right of people not to be bothered with your sides nonsense.

When he does it again I hope he is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Kristofer said...

I hope they post my earlier comments.

I found this to be very interesting JB

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/frisby.html

It turns out the Supreme Court is completely on the side of the captive audience.

Your pastor broke the law and was properly dealt with. I just with the DA had the nerve to properly deal with.

Joe Bradley said...

Kristofer,

The case you cite involved a group of people protesting an abortion doctor's practice at his home in a residential district in violation of a city ordinance prohibiting such demonstrations in a, purely residential, street.

In the majority opinion, Justice O'Connor stated:

"The picket need not be carrying a sign, but in order to fall within the scope of the ordinance the picketing must be directed at a single residence. General marching through residential neighborhoods, or even walking a route in front of an entire block of houses, is not prohibited by this ordinance. Accordingly, we construe the ban to be a limited one; only focused picketing taking place solely in front of a particular residence is prohibited."

He further states:

"Protestors have not been barred from the residential neighborhoods. They may enter such neighborhoods, alone or in groups, even marching. . . . They may go door-to-door to proselytize their views. They may distribute literature in this manner . . . or through the mails. They may contact residents by telephone, short of harassment."

The decision involved the constitutionality of a law which prohibited picketing that was directed at someone's home in a residential district of the city.

Just as a word of advice, when you look up and find yourself in a hole, it may be time to stop digging.

Kristofer said...

JB

What hole am I in? The only one in a hole is your side.

Your side does not understand the concept of a " captive audience". The audience at the DMV could not leave without drastically having their ability to engage in state mandated business affected. Therefore they are a captive audience because they are forced to either listen to the pastors nonsense or leave and not conduct state business in a timely manner. The first amendment does not apply in this case.

Your side does not get the concept of a public forum. Not every place that is public is a public forum. Even though a school is public it does not mean you can barge into the school ( or even stand on it's property) and force your views on people. The same with a recruiters office. That is because while public these exist for the purpose of a specific activity. None of the above is remotely contested.

So we know that it is legal to stop speech if an audience is captive and we know not every public place has unrestricted rights to speech.

So what is this hole that I am in again? The audience was captive and a DMV is not a public forum. The pastor was completely in the wrong and breaking the law.

Case law such as what I cited 100% supports the captive audience view. My stance of not every public area being a public forum is also not controversial.

Joe Bradley said...

Kristofer,

If you'll stop digging for a moment, put your shovel down and wipe the dust from your eyes, you will be able to read the cases that you cite.

This would be wise since, so far, you have made MY case and NOT yours.

Judging from your diet of apples and oranges, you must be a vegetarian.

Kristofer said...

Who is digging, your the one defending a man who was illegally forcing his views on a captive audience ( which he was arrested for)and he was doing this at an area any sensible person knows is not a free speech zone. It was a place of business not a park.

As I have stated many times if this has been a public park, downtown etc I would be defending the pastor because you cannot have a captive audience there and that is a well understood free speech zone, it is not a place of business. I think what happened to David Wood when he was arrested was completely wrong, because that was a free speech zone for example.

None of my points are controversial. My points are well known understandings of the first amendment, you cannot force your views on others and you cannot harass or impede a business, even if it is publicly owned.

You are the one having to defend the two very questionable claims that you can force on a captive audience and you can impede a business.

Tell you what if you think what the pastor did is legal try it. Go to a public school and demand your right to preach. Go to a recruiters office and demand the right to preach there. Go to the IRS and do this behavior. Do all that stuff in their parking lot. You will be arrested. That is cause those are not free speech zones, those are government businesses.

Your pastor was at the DMV ( yes being in the DMV parking is being at the DMV) and he was harassing DMV customers which was therefore hindering necessary business in California ( if they leave the DMV instead of performing necessary legal business that does harm the State of California).

You should really do research on " captive audiences" and " free speech zones" and once you do that you will see why the pastor was completely wrong. I have no doubt the pastor is aware of all of this, but he did this anyways cause he wants to make himself into a martyr. He tried to play the martyr when he was being arrested and when I think of all the people who have truly been persecuted for their views over the ages his conduct makes me sick.

My points are not controversial, for your argument to be true only the pastor can have rights. And that is very controversial stance indeed.

Take of the blinders, you have already been told by street evangelists Steve and Sarah what the pastor did was wrong and they explained why. I would recommend you listen to them on this one.

Joe Bradley said...

Poor Poor Kristofer, where do I start in my attempts to correct your misconceptions? I have tried before but you, simply, do not listen to reason.

Regarding your misconception of "Free Speech Zones":

"Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves."*

These zones are clearly ad-hoc areas declared for a specific purpose, usually for large political gatherings. There was no such gathering in Hemet that day which would cause the City of Hemet to establish a "Free Speech Zone". Your suggestion that Hemet is replete with Free Speech Zones is absurd.

Next I will attempt to correct your thinking on the concept of "Preaching To A Captive Audience.

You presented me with a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the Constitutionality of a city ordinance which prohibited picketing which targeted a particfdular individual's residence within a residential district. The relevant case involved a hostile crowd outside of the residence of an abortion doctor. At least half of the written opinion sought to reaffirm free speech rights within residential neighborhoods. Rights including, but not limited to, door-to-door proselytizing.**

To Be Continued . . .

Joe Bradley said...

Continuing On . . .

You have relied on a decision which, while speaking to a family held "captive" in a residential area of the city, bears absolutely no resemblance to the situation involving the preacher in Hemet. The only similarity is that you and your fellow ideologue have seized on the word "captive" (used in the decision in a completely different context) as your common battle cry.

The court found that the ordinance's prohibition against targeted picketing of a residence within a residential area of the city was constitutional but, further, stated this:

"Of course, this case presents only a facial challenge to the ordinance. Particular hypothetical applications of the ordinance -- to, for example, a particular resident's use of his or her home as a place of business or public meeting, or to picketers present at a particular home by invitation of the resident -- may present somewhat different questions. Initially, the ordinance by its own terms may not apply in such circumstances, since the ordinance's goal is the protection of residential privacy, and since it speaks only of a "residence or dwelling," not a place of business."

Hopefully this will edify you . . . . NAAAA!


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

** "They may go door-to-door to proselytize their views."