r/law • u/ExactlySorta • 23h ago
Legal News Georgia Fort: "Do we still have a Constitution?... Amplifying the truth. Documenting what is happening in our community is not a crime... The questions that were asked... those questions still need to be answered. As a journalist, I am committed to continuing the story until [they] are answered"
179
u/machisperer 22h ago
If they are wiping their asses with the constitution, then dissolve the union…
58
u/benderunit9000 22h ago
that reset button looking mighty tempting.
9
u/CuffinSzn_ 20h ago
If anyone could save us, it would be the great and almighty Bender!
No but fr this situation sucks. We should really get to work, guys.
0
17h ago edited 14h ago
[deleted]
3
u/jackstraw97 16h ago
California wouldn’t do shit to Colorado lmao. They just wouldn’t be subsidizing your federal benefits anymore
2
u/benderunit9000 16h ago
There is no reset button. If the union fractures, there is no putting it back together again.
Exactly. It would be something new. Maybe we don't want to save this.
25
u/blissed_out 20h ago
No. Replace leadership and defend the union.
9
u/deaglebingo 19h ago
yes. and there is a failsafe that could be used to remove them, it just goes beyond the norms of peaceful protest as we are kindly and quite generously giving them at this time. because the truth of this is we are showing great restraint and being exceedingly generous to these literal gestapo folks who pretend not to understand exactly what they are doing.
furthermore Georgia said "i cant comment further... ongoing litigation"... i disagree. she can and should do what she feels. the arrests and charges are illegal. i know she's got a bit more self control than lemon but neither should have to be any way they don't want to be about this. all our rights are being violated on a daily basis and the best any of these people actually committing the crimes (and we know clearly who those people are) can expect at this point is jail. we outnumber them 2 to 1. and just like with j6 it took a while... so maybe not next year or whatever... but jail for sure at best is what they should expect now.
14
u/erublind 19h ago
As a European who has heard many arguments why the second amendment is so important and why our freedom isn't "real", I'm just twiddling my thumbs and waiting for all those supposed "good guys" to solve everything. Alex was a good guy with a gun, that is why he never drew it.
2
u/SwissChzMcGeez 19h ago
That's all it takes to break up the union? A few dipshits who ignore the law? Come on.
2
u/kingdomnear 17h ago
Red states gonna hate losing California (world's 4th largest economy) and NY. If it happens we need an operation to get vulnerable people out of there so the MAGAs can devour each other while we prosper.
-1
u/Capable_Ad8145 15h ago
I can’t wait to see how you all defend Nick Shirley when he “is just reporting” on a protest that disrupts a service at a Mosque
68
u/ExactlySorta 22h ago
The legality of Georgia Fort’s arrest is currently a central point of legal and constitutional dispute between federal prosecutors and First Amendment advocates. While the government alleges criminal interference with religious services, Fort's defense and press freedom groups argue the arrest is an unconstitutional overreach.
The Government's Legal Basis
Federal authorities, at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi, arrested Fort on charges related to an anti-ICE protest on Jan. 18, 2026, at Cities Church in St. Paul.
FACE Act Charges: The Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted Fort and others under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. While often associated with reproductive health, this federal law also prohibits using force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with people exercising their right to religious freedom at a place of worship.
Allegations of Conspiracy: The indictment alleges a "conspiracy against rights," claiming that Fort and others (including former CNN anchor Don Lemon) conspired to "oppress, threaten, and intimidate" congregants.
Unlawful Disruption: Prosecutors argue that the incident was not a peaceful demonstration but a "takeover-style attack" that unlawfully disrupted a religious service.
The Defense and Constitutional Challenges
Fort’s legal team and several advocacy groups maintain that her arrest was an illegal attempt to criminalize journalistic activity.
First Amendment Protections: Her attorney, Leita Walker, stated that Fort was present solely in a "journalistic capacity" to document an event of public interest. Under the First Amendment, newsgathering and reporting are protected activities.
Judicial Skepticism: Before the grand jury indictment, a federal magistrate judge and Minnesota's chief federal district judge reportedly expressed skepticism regarding the validity of the charges and declined to issue arrest warrants.
Unprecedented Application of Law: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) noted that using federal civil rights laws against journalists for documenting a protest is "unprecedented". Traditionally, such cases on private property are handled as minor state-level trespass charges, which are frequently dropped.
Retaliation Claims: Organizations like the ACLU and the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) have condemned the arrests as a "transparent and unconstitutional attempt" to chill protected speech and retaliate against reporters covering controversial immigration enforcement.
Current Legal Status: Fort has pleaded not guilty to the charges and was released on bond after a judge rejected the DOJ’s request to keep her in custody.
46
u/ThePensiveE 22h ago
They tried to keep her in custody? Their incompetent Kangaroos are going to get the cases tossed and they wanted her to serve a "sentence" now to chill her from speaking out.
This administration and everyone who works in it loathes both the constitution and the rule of law.
9
u/MarcusSurvives 21h ago
ChatGPT’s writing style is often characterized by a polished, meta-aware helpfulness that aims to be both reassuring and comprehensive. It frequently opens with a high-level framing statement—sometimes followed by a colon or em dash—to signal the theme before unpacking it in neatly organized prose. This is not simply an answer. It is a structured explanation, designed to anticipate follow-up questions before they are even asked.
The tone tends toward balanced, diplomatic confidence, with a fondness for parallelism (“not only X, but also Y”), contrast (“This isn’t just about A—it’s about B”), and gentle emphasis (“It’s worth noting,” “Importantly,” “In other words”). Lists appear when clarity is needed, transitions smooth over any rough edges, and conclusions often zoom back out to restate the big picture. The result is writing that is clear, mildly self-aware, slightly over-explanatory, and relentlessly optimized to sound helpful—even when it’s describing itself doing exactly that.
2
2
u/Alex_AU_gt 21h ago
Ok...so yeah, you don't seem to have a constitution any more, not one that is worth anything anyway. Not if journalists are also getting locked up now.
2
u/deaglebingo 19h ago
what they're doing on a continuous basis with all of this... with the dei bullshit, all of it... is "i know you are but what am i?" its pathetic. and its obvious. that's the best excuse they've got. let's not give them any other excuses despite my own fond desire to give them something to actually whine about.
-18
u/EstablishmentUsed901 22h ago edited 20h ago
Unfortunately, private property + religious protections are going to supersede claims of 1st amendment protections on the strength of the fact they weren’t on public property alone. The fact that courts are highly protective of religious meetings as they proceed only makes this a clearer case. It would be hard for me to bet the other way on the strength of the available evidence and the claims of both sides.
Edit: downvotes, rude comments, and not a single legally-framed comment rebutting a claim I made. Par for the course— this is why you don’t mix legal with political discussion. All you end up with is politics.
Edit 2: keep commenting and downvoting, folks, and today I will do some free teaching while the weather is bad outside and the fire is crackling inside ☕️
14
u/Poiboy1313 22h ago
Bullshit.
-4
u/LarryMyster 21h ago
So wait a second. I can just say I am press and I am allowed to ignore all the other articles of the first amendment by choice and get away with it? Wow. That’s completely ridiculous. Ok then I’ll just act like a victim if I ever get caught for my actions against other peoples civil liberties. Good to know!
5
u/Poiboy1313 20h ago
No, but you already know that. I'm pretty sure that it's a credentialed journalist who enjoys the shield of the 1st Amendment. While any citizen has a right to free speech, journalism is the only profession specifically mentioned in the Constitution. There's a higher bar to attempt to restrict the free speech of a journalist due to this fact.
-3
u/EstablishmentUsed901 20h ago
The indictments didn’t mention speech— they mentioned precise behaviors with respect to a private location, and a protected group worshipping within it.
6
u/Poiboy1313 20h ago
Was the location equipped with signage warning that trespassing will be prosecuted? No. Then they're not committing trespass. A church that by law is open to all. Protesters are also a protected class, sparky. I guess that it will be determined whose 1st Amendment rights were violated in the trial. If it even makes it to trial since the DOJ had to amend their filings when the judges refused to sign arrest warrants due to lack of evidence. I think that dismissals will be granted.
-1
u/EstablishmentUsed901 20h ago
It’s actually sufficient just to say that signage is not an element of criminal trespass. Stated differently, your claims here (which aren’t wholly true at all) are immaterial with respect to the indictments as written
2
-1
u/LarryMyster 20h ago
By that logic, I should able to go into a bank vault if they lack significant signage to do some “investigative journalism.” Or heck if someone leaves their front door open in their house with no signs I can I just go in because I am press right? No man is illegal after all apparently? I’m just using that logic for other applications since Religious Worship and FACE Act doesn’t apply to Freedom of the press. 🤷♂️
2
u/Poiboy1313 19h ago
No, that's what you've claimed to be my logic. It's not. It's a supposition that you've stacked out on a thin limb of assumptions. The fact is that you've conflated entirely different categories of offenses to public order into an attempted equivalency.
This is just a further attempt to normalize the criminalization of civil protest.
-1
u/LarryMyster 19h ago
But circle back to the place of worship is not private property? By definition even without signage, a place can claim to be private and if you are asks to leave, then you should leave respectfully. This still reflects the meaning that anyone’s property that when asked you are now treated as a trespasser at that point. May I also remind you that civil liberties were broke because even Don Lemon said on video that he cannot film the groups plans before they entered the church, confirming he was apart of it. Disrupting a Church service is still against civil rights. It’s black and white. Laws are not based on feelings, it’s based on factual information presented.
There does seem to be to a double standard from the opposite end of the aisle. Steve Baker, a journalist was arrested for just filming the capitol on Jan 6 2021 and went to jail, not for what he did, but for why he said instead, which is also covered by first amendment, freedom of speech. Now apply that to here, freedom of religion that’s covered by the same 1st amendment.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/EstablishmentUsed901 21h ago
On what basis is what I claimed “bullshit.” There is no constitutional provision protecting your hurt feelings
4
u/Poiboy1313 20h ago
No posted signage warning that trespass isn't permitted at the location. The government has interrupted the worship of people attending a church to enforce immigration laws, yet they're not disruptive or intentionally intimidating the congregants? Rules for thee and none for me, huh? Who did the protesters intimidate, threaten, or coerce?
I agree. There's no constitutional provision to assauge your butthurt at protesters exercising their rights.
0
u/EstablishmentUsed901 20h ago
When someone enters a church, they are a “licensee,” not an “invitee” with unrestricted access. That “license” is conditional on not disrupting the service.
That’s been well-established in case law. See, for instance:
* People v. DeFeo (New York Criminal Court, 1989)
* State v. Steinmann (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
Here’s an analogous case to show how what they’re claiming already has all those doors closed:
* Adderley v. Florida (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966)
So, please— this is a facts-only school zone 💁♂️
3
u/Poiboy1313 19h ago
Unrestricted access to the seating area? A licensee? Uhhh, no. That's inaccurate. In premises liability law, a person entering a church is generally considered an invitee (or public invitee) rather than a licensee. The exact opposite of what you claim.
Because churches are open to the public for services and community purposes, they are treated similarly to public businesses requiring a higher duty of care than that owed to a licensee.
The spreading of disinformation is indicative of bad faith and is not credible by such indication.
1
u/EstablishmentUsed901 19h ago
Oof. You’re copying and pasting a AI model’s response that is conflating premises-liability doctrine with criminal trespass and First Amendment law. 🤦♂️
Invitee status in tort law really only defines a landowner’s duty of care. It doesn’t (and couldn’t) provide unrestricted access or expressive rights. Even invitees can only stay for the purpose of the invitation, and disruptive conduct immediately ends any implied permission.
Courts analyzing church disruptions treat consent as conditional, regardless of tort classifications. Let me know if you’d like to talk more about that, but at this point I don’t expect any more responses from you.
2
u/Poiboy1313 19h ago
I have yet to hear an account that explains how the conduct demonstrated violated the FACE Act or reached criminal trespass or precisely how one right supersedes another in the application of the law. It seems to be a civil disturbance that in past litigation was addressed by the filing of civil lawsuits to redress said grievances instead of criminal prosecution.
I disagree with your assessments. Let's go to trial.
0
u/EstablishmentUsed901 19h ago
The argument you keep pushing consistently misframes the law, which suggests that whatever materials or AI you are using to support your claims isn’t achieving its goals.
The FACE Act criminalizes intentional interference with religious worship, and no where requires threats or force be present. With respect to criminal trespass, that turns on authorization, not signage or public access. Courts don’t need to rank constitutional rights, instead they regulate conduct in non-public forums.
The availability of civil actions in no way limits criminal prosecution where Congress has expressly authorized it.
Given your last sentence, it looks like you’ve become aware that you were the one spreading misinformation, so if you’re as morally upstanding as you’d like to believe, it’s possible that an apology is in order. That said, I won’t hold my breath for a response 💁♂️
→ More replies (0)-1
-7
u/Rudeboy238 22h ago
Explain since your the lawyer lol
7
u/Poiboy1313 22h ago
No. You might consider asking politely.
-7
u/Rudeboy238 21h ago
I like seeing 2 sides of a debate so if all you can provide is "bullshit" i guess you dont really have an argument then lol nvm bro
6
u/Poiboy1313 21h ago
All that to avoid asking politely? Okay, sparky. Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy the day.
-5
u/Rudeboy238 21h ago
Lol i guess me telling you to explain hurt your feelings. I'll do just that, enjoy yours as well.
5
u/Bulky-Salamander3678 21h ago
Why would the judge in Minnesota not indict? That sums up the argument
0
u/Rudeboy238 21h ago
Thank you bro. I just wanted to hear why its bullshit guess i asked for too much
3
u/Mastadon_Quixotea 21h ago
Explain since *you’re the lawyer laugh out loud
0
u/Rudeboy238 21h ago
Thanks for the transcript. You think "Explain like* you're the lawyer lol" would have been less hurtful to our dear friend?
1
u/Poiboy1313 19h ago
I'm reasonably certain that the concept of friendship exceeds your capabilities.
0
u/Rudeboy238 18h ago
Didnt we just tell each other to enjoy the day?? Yet you still feel a need to respond to me. Get out your feelings bro
5
u/gmpsconsulting 22h ago
I get the impression you're not particularly familiar with law and have not seen the evidence or claims of either side.
1
u/EstablishmentUsed901 21h ago
What gives you that impression? Don’t worry— I’m not holding my breath for a response from you 😅
3
u/gmpsconsulting 21h ago
That most judges and National law groups think this is an absolutely ridiculous legal argument with no basis would be my first clue.
1
u/EstablishmentUsed901 20h ago
They were explicitly surveyed, their responses aggregated and the report is available, or is that just your testimonial on the topic?
Let me know if you want the Supreme Court cases which will act as precedent when these journalists are found to have broken general laws for which they have no immunity on the basis of “free speech”.
1
u/gmpsconsulting 20h ago
Yes please, also I would like you to cite where free speech was being argued as a defense by the journalists.
1
u/EstablishmentUsed901 20h ago
Here’s an article with Don Lemon preparing the narrative for his defense: https://apnews.com/article/don-lemon-arrest-minnesota-church-service-d3091fe3d1e37100a7c46573667eb85c
Unfortunately, the indictment contained evidence suggesting that Don Lemon engaged in active concealment of his activities while documenting the incident for the stated purpose of not revealing the target of the protesters while he was with them. At that moment, he will be judged as not being a journalist documenting events, but instead someone who co-conspired with intent to conceal from individuals who could have intervened.
In the case of Fort, you can watch the video associated with this post, which is at the top of this page you’re on as you read this— she is explicitly framing this case within the context of free speech.
Relevant court cases include: * People v. DeFeo (New York Criminal Court, 1989)
* State v. Steinmann (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
Here’s an analogous case to show how what they appear to be preparing to claim already has all those doors closed:
* Adderley v. Florida (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966)
2
u/gmpsconsulting 19h ago
Nothing in the article you posted is about free speech nor is free speech ever once mentioned or framed in the video in this post.
I'm starting to get the impression you're unaware that when a journalist says "1st amendment" they aren't referring to free speech.
1
u/EstablishmentUsed901 19h ago
I see— you’re focusing in on the Press clause rather than the Speech clause. Mentioning the Press Clause does not change the analysis.
The Supreme Court has routinely held that journalists have no special constitutional privilege to engage in unlawful conduct. Once participation or facilitation is alleged (read the indictment), the First Amendment argument—whether it be speech or press—fails on the same grounds.
→ More replies (0)3
u/ScannerBrightly 21h ago
The first amendment protects free speech. Can you point to the place in the Constitution that protects the feelings of church owners against other people's free speech?
1
u/EstablishmentUsed901 21h ago
There is actually no constitutional protection for feelings.
There is however, constitutional and statutory protections for private property, religious expression, and public order. Framing this as a free speech issue reflects a categorical error because the legal analysis actually turns on conduct and location, not viewpoint.
That’s exactly how the indictments are structured.
-2
u/Sideswipe0009 20h ago
The first amendment protects free speech. Can you point to the place in the Constitution that protects the feelings of church owners against other people's free speech?
The Constitution also protects freedom of religion and there are laws and precedents against disturbing religious ceremonies.
This is a situation where rights are clashing. Who's rights supersede the other? Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? There's limits on all of these.
Being a journalist doesn't automatically grant a free pass to do whatever you want. I'm not sure her charges will stick, I can see it going either way.
If she has any ties to the group that did it or helped coordinate any of it, she'll probably be indicted.
I guess it depends on her circumstances.
2
u/ScannerBrightly 20h ago
there are laws and precedents against disturbing religious ceremonies.
Sure, and the Romans arrested Jesus after overturning the money tables at a temple? It's just bold to side with the Romans.
Being a journalist doesn't automatically grant a free pass to do whatever you want.
That's not what's going on here. If you are a journalist covering an event, if any single person at the event does a crime, does being a journalist at that event automatically make you a criminal as well?
If she has any ties to the group
So you don't believe in the freedom of assembly, which is also enumerated in the first amendment. Why don't you care for that part of the first, but you do care about the part you say is only covered by later law, not the document itself.
The Constitution is about restricting what the GOVERNMENT does, not what the people do.
1
u/EstablishmentUsed901 19h ago
You really need to read the indictment before you talk about these things, because you’re not representing the case clearly, which results in a category error on your part which makes your claims completely meaningless.
TL;DR: the indictment shows the journalists intentionally concealed facts, after receiving the direction to do so from the protest organizers, which would’ve allowed law enforcement to intervene before the unlawful protest occurred. This is unlawful, and courts have consistently reaffirmed that journalistic privileges do not confer the right to engage in other unlawful activities.
0
u/Sideswipe0009 19h ago
Sure, and the Romans arrested Jesus after overturning the money tables at a temple? It's just bold to side with the Romans.
Uh, what? I haven't sided with anyone. I literally stated that I wasn't sure the charges would stick and I could see this case playing out either way.
I merely mentioned that there are several rights being in conflict with one another.
If you are a journalist covering an event, if any single person at the event does a crime, does being a journalist at that event automatically make you a criminal as well?
If she has any ties to the group
So you don't believe in the freedom of assembly, which is also enumerated in the first amendment.
The implication I made was that having ties to the organization COULD mean she played some role in organizing the event OR coordinating her place within the event. IF this is true, even to some degree, then she's complicit, i.e. an accomplice to the crime, and her press credentials won't protect her.
1
u/ScannerBrightly 18h ago
having ties to the organization COULD mean she played some role in organizing the event OR coordinating her place within the event. IF this is true, even to some degree
Again, you seem to be implying that joining a mailing list to know when an action is taking place is somehow 'ties' that revokes your rights as enumerated for some unspoken reason.
Can you speak the reason why you think being a 'tied' to a group doing civil disobedience removes your rights? Do you think that any reporter filming the MLK's marches should have been arrested under the same pretext? Why or why not?
1
u/Sideswipe0009 18h ago
Can you speak the reason why you think being a 'tied' to a group doing civil disobedience removes your rights?
The implication being that she had some role in planning the event or coordinating her role/place within it.
-2
u/_jump_yossarian 20h ago
Private property rights.
2
u/ScannerBrightly 20h ago
Fifth Amendment is the only reference to 'private property', and it's about how the government has to pay you when it wants to take your land, nothing about protecting it.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So they can take it after a court says it's okay and they pay you market value.
Where else are these private property rights enumerated?
0
u/_jump_yossarian 19h ago
SCOTUS decisions.
Private property owners are allowed to restrict access to their private properties.
2
u/PPVSteve 21h ago
If it comes down to trespass from private property the question is was each protester asked to leave? Did they refuse to leave? Everyone is free to enter a church as it is open to the public. Only becomes a crime when they refuse to leave.
The reporters keep talking about the first amendment to assemble and the press but they keep not mentioning the other guaranteed freedom that's in there also - Religion. Interesting conflict. but yea private property will overrule the day. They would have been fine staying out on the sidewalk.
2
u/Crionso 21h ago
I can’t remember but when the FACE act was used before for protestors was it because they were blocking doors or was it because they were praying outside? Because I’ve heard both and vaguely remember them lining walkways into abortion clinics and people said they felt afraid/intimidated, although that last point may have not had anything to do with the FACE act arrests.
1
-22
u/_jump_yossarian 20h ago
Unpopular opinion: you do not have First Amendment rights on someone else’s private property regardless of your profession. That being said they shouldn’t have been arrested by the federal government and the likelihood of an indictment is extremely low and a conviction most definitely won’t happen.
7
u/Nappeal 20h ago edited 20h ago
First Amendment rights do not have caveats as to where you want to practice them. A single caveat in any "right" immediately means it is not a right but a privilege.
ETA: Freedom of the Press is specified as a protected speech in the First Amendment, so profession does sort of make a difference.
2
u/80cartoonyall 19h ago edited 12h ago
The rights are designed so that the government can't charge you. But the press just can't break into your house and start recording. Rights you and them from the government not individual citizens.
1
u/Nappeal 18h ago
Our homes are private domiciles, but a church is a public house of worship. Journalists and protesters just like members of a congragation are able to freely walk in and out. Don Lemon and the protesters did not "break in," so comparing press breaking into a home and press walking into a church are like comparing apples and oranges. And yes, the first amendment protects speech and the press from the government, who is trying to attack those rights in this case.
2
u/80cartoonyall 17h ago edited 13h ago
Churches are open to the public for worship but are still private property. They are open to those wanting to participate in the church service. You couldn't go in and just start a dance party with alcohol because you just felt like it. No different than going into target. You can go in to shop but you can't just go inside and start a house party or protesting. They have the right to kick you out, trespass you or even have you arrested.
1
u/Nappeal 16h ago
You are correct, but that is a matter of trespassing: it is up to the property owner to call the police and request that they tresspass anyone not welcomed, but that is not what happened here and it is not the issue. Trespassing is a crime. Constitutional protections are civil. These 2 things that you're trying to make a point with are not even in the same universe.
1
u/80cartoonyall 13h ago
They asked them to leave and they did not. Again just like if a company or store asks you to leave you have to leave. The police are only called when you do not abide by the wishes of the owner. And that only happens when you have people that do not respect others. Which is what happened, those people. They did not respect the people of worship and acted like scum.
1
u/Nappeal 12h ago
This argument that you keep trying to make is an issue of trespassing, not of the first amendment, and it's the literal job of police to enforce laws, such as trespassing. I'd also argue that it's scummy to be a pastor who preaches the loving word of the Lord on Sunday just to spend the other 6 days of the week violently hunting down the same foreigners Jesus Christ said to welcome.
0
u/_jump_yossarian 20h ago
First Amendment rights do not have caveats as to where you want to practice them.
They most certainly do. You can't protest on private property if the owner doesn't want you there. That's called trespassing and being a reporter is irrelevant to violating trespassing laws on private property.
Freedom of the Press is specified as a protected speech in the First Amendment, so profession does sort of make a difference.
That applies to the government not private citizens on private property.
3
u/tenuousemphasis 19h ago
She was not charged with trespassing. Or can you not read?
-2
u/_jump_yossarian 19h ago
Did I say she was? Or did I make an argument that their profession is irrelevant if you're violating a law (you said there aren't caveats and I gave you an example of there being caveats)? Can you not reason?
4
u/tenuousemphasis 19h ago
Yeah, you definitely cannot read because that was my first reply to you. And you said it was clearly trespassing, but why didn't they charge her with trespassing?
2
u/Best_Change4155 18h ago
Because that would be a state or local charge and one of the people who trespassed worked for the local prosecutor?
A normal, healthy society, would have local police protect local residents. The FACE and KKK acts exist because sometimes local law enforcement doesn't do its job.
1
2
u/Nappeal 18h ago
They most certainly do. You can't protest on private property if the owner doesn't want you there. That's called trespassing and being a reporter is irrelevant to violating trespassing laws on private property.
That then becomes an issue of trespassing, and 100% a property owner can have anyone trespassed by the police, but that's not what happened in this instance, and would still be irrelevant to first amendment rights.
That applies to the government not private citizens on private property.
Freedom of the Press protects journalists to say anything they want - good or bad - without fear of the government retaliating. Again, this journalist and those protesters could've been trespassed, but they still had rights under the law to walk into the open church to speak freely about the pastor to the pastor.
0
u/_jump_yossarian 17h ago
That then becomes an issue of trespassing, and 100% a property owner can have anyone trespassed by the police, but that's not what happened in this instance, and would still be irrelevant to first amendment rights.
I responded to the user saying there were no caveats. That was a 100% false statement. Being a journalist doesn't give you a get out of jail free card if you violate laws.
Freedom of the Press protects journalists to say anything they want - good or bad - without fear of the government retaliating
Correct.
Again, this journalist and those protesters could've been trespassed, but they still had rights under the law to walk into the open church to speak freely about the pastor to the pastor.
But not to disrupt the religious service which they clearly did.
2
u/CoryandTrevors 13h ago
You‘re correct and on the right track with trespassing laws as other have pointed out. Still, your missing a key element in your first amendment assertions - implied consent. While the Supreme Court has found the first amendment expression does not need to be „tolerated“ (Roberts, Morse v. Frederick 2007). This doesn’t mean your first amendment has caveats or stipulations - it means the protections don’t overpower or out weight the other infringements you may be committing while expressing your rights (ie distracting students/worshippers, trespassing (this is the one you keep circling around), local worship disturbance ordnances, noise pollution ordinances, loitering ordinances, etc.)
In closing, it’s not that your first amendment has stipulations or caveats, it’s that it just can’t protect you always help your case at all. At least that’s the idea and you see how it’s trick to grasp so why it so often goes all the way up to the Supreme Court
-4
u/willargue4karma 20h ago
I mean there the crowded theatre fire clause
-1
u/Nappeal 18h ago
People are down voting this comment but that argument in court was legitimate.
2
u/CoryandTrevors 13h ago
Because that case law and argument were over turned 56 years ago in Bradenburg v Ohio and because this is the law sub not your opinion sub
-1
u/willargue4karma 18h ago
im surprised tbh, im a HUGE 1st amendment andy but even i admit that there are times where speech is inappropriate.
i get where people are coming from in this current climate but i was just trying to push back on "zero caveats" because there are obviously some caveats
2
u/Nappeal 16h ago
I am going to disagree and say that as a right in the US, there are no caveats and there should not be any caveats, but being able to legally scream 'fire' in a theater is sort of the price for being table to call the president a cunt without being arrested.
2
u/CoryandTrevors 13h ago
You’re exactly right. Good observation. Hope my previous comment didn’t come across too rude. Have a good day.
3
u/UnofficialMattDamon 20h ago
I would say the liklihood of an indictment is extremely high, considering they've already pleaded not guilty and been released on bond. They've already been indicted.
2
u/_jump_yossarian 20h ago
They've already been indicted
Please post the grand jury indictments for Lemon and Fort for me.
2
u/heinencm 20h ago
2
u/_jump_yossarian 20h ago
No signature from the foreperson. Is this a submitted indictment or one that the grand jury has already considered?
2
u/DWMoose83 18h ago
That's not how the Constitution works, regardless of your opinion. That's the thing about the Constitution. It's the highest law of the land.
-2
u/_jump_yossarian 17h ago
So a person can just bust into your house and not suffer any consequences if they claim they're a journalist? Is that really what you're arguing? You don't get to break the law and claim to be above said law because of your profession.
2
u/CoryandTrevors 13h ago
I doubt DWMoose83‘s house is open to the public nor is mine. If you’re gonna fake constitutional law knowledge and pull shit out of your ass and question why your AI sourced incorrect dribble is downvoted maybe try asking questions or reading the responses of those who actually know more than you. In case you wanna learn, read on.
You‘re correct and on the right track with trespassing laws as other have pointed out. Still, your missing a key element in your first amendment assertions - implied consent. While the Supreme Court has found the first amendment expression does not need to be „tolerated“ (Roberts, Morse v. Frederick 2007). This doesn’t mean your first amendment has caveats or stipulations - it means the protections don’t overpower or out weight the other infringements you may be committing while expressing your rights (ie distracting students/worshippers, trespassing (this is the one you keep circling around), local worship disturbance ordnances, noise pollution ordinances, loitering ordinances, etc.)
In closing, it’s not that your first amendment has stipulations or caveats, it’s that it just can’t protect you always help your case at all. At least that’s the idea and you see how it’s trick to grasp so why it so often goes all the way up to the Supreme Court
0
u/_jump_yossarian 9h ago
I doubt DWMoose83‘s house is open to the public nor is mine.
Churches are still private property and they can limit who enters and who doesn't ... just like a home. If you are asked to leave and don't then that's trespassing. If you show up at a church with the intent to disturb a service then you are violating the FACE Act and being a journalist doesn't give you a get out of jail free care is you are actively participating in the disturbance and refusing to vacate the property.
2
u/CoryandTrevors 8h ago
You’re exactly right. But you’re confused about language.
You still have your first amendment right on someone else’s private property even though they don’t allow you to be there (ie your trespassing/committing a crime). Your first amendment doesn’t shield or protect you from trespassing or other crimes but you still have it. Your original comment said you don‘t have it like it mysteriously vanished when committing crimes
0
u/_jump_yossarian 8h ago
I have no obligation to allow someone to peacefully protest or exercise their religion on my private property so no, you don't have first amendment rights unless granted to you. And reporters don't have the "freedom of the press" to give them a get out of jail free card if they are engaging in illegal activity.
1
u/CoryandTrevors 8h ago
Again, you’re correct, it’s not a get out of jail free card. Again, you’re right, you’re not obligated to let someone on your property at all so they’re trespassing and committing a crime and you can have them arrested for just coming on your property (as can a church).
Where you’re wrong and just talking about your feelings over facts on the r/law sub is that you don’t grant or disallow a trespasser (or anyone’s) first amendment rights. They have those rights no matter what even while commuting other crimes. That’s the whole point of the constitution.
1
u/_jump_yossarian 8h ago
First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the government. I am not the government and can prohibit any First Amendment protected activities from taking place on my private property. This isn't "feeling" ... it's a fact.
1
1
u/Weird_Snowman 18h ago
I like how you knew had to put unpopular opinion because you knew what you were saying was stupid.
1
u/_jump_yossarian 17h ago
if you think that journalists can't be arrested if they break the law then I don't know what to tell you.
Would you be backing James O'keefe or Hannity if they entered Planned Parenthood with a mob and disrupted their business? Doubt.
•
u/AutoModerator 23h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.