CHRISTIAN arrested for preaching bible at court house? What ever happened to freedom of speech?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Here's the video clip: m.youtube.com...

This is an example of what is soon to become world wide for all Christians who spread biblical testimonies for the sake of World Peace, One World Order, and One World Religion under the One World Church. Jesus Christ is returning soon, repent now before its to late, this could be your last warning.

I pray that Lord Jesus Christ will touch the hearts of all who read this post and open your eyes up to the truth and gives everyone the courage to repent and accept them in their heart by the power of the HOLY GHOST. Amen




posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I certainly support the right of ALL people to free speech.

Would you be so kind as to add information about the video? My mobile device doesn't have the ability to play the video at the link you provided.

I am not a Christian, but I support your right to share your religion with others. Just remember to respect other people's right not to listen. Good luck to you.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
It's a bad arrest, although I can understand why the officer made it.

Here's the pertinent section of the California Penal Code, Section 602.1:

(b)Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business carried on by the employees of a public agency open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or those persons there to transact business with the public agency, and who refuses to leave the premises of the public agency after being requested to leave by the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the office manager or a supervisor of the public agency, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

(c)This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:

(1)Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

(2)Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.

(d)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede the application of any other law.

codes.lp.findlaw.com...

Even I could successfully defend this one. First the state has to show that he was intentionally interfering, by obstructing or intimidating. Not a chance in the world the state could show that.

Further, it doesn't apply to people engaing in Constitutionally protected activities, which they were.

At least there's good publicity from it.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
He was impeding business, these people were waiting in line at the DMV. They either would have to stand there to hold their place and listen to his preaching or they would have to leave and lose their place. If they wanted to conduct their business they literally would have no choice but to listen to this man's sermon.

It's like being forced to "go to church" when all you wanted was to renew your driver's license. It is not the same as preaching on a street corner or on church/home property.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
The legal theory as it was explained in my Poli-Sci class and why they have to be careful about what is said in the classroom as well is 'Captive Audience'. It's one thing to peach in a public park. It's another to do it to a line of people who either have to abandon their business to get away from it or put up with someone else's preaching and religion. If it were Islam or Judaism, would it be equally tolerable? That's what I'd ask people. I'd say no all the way around, personally.

I like hearing about other religions. Not while in line for other business and not having asked for it though. Thats rude..and actually, illegal.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Metallicus
 


The man was preaching outside the dmv and an officer unlawfully arrested him for it.
edit on 21-8-2013 by 2WitnessesArrived because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 2WitnessesArrived
 


0:47 in the video...he says it's the DMV. This vid has been on here before. Quite some time ago..but I'd also add that the people behind them in the video aren't just standing around to watch. They're in line waiting for the place to open.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by zetaM7
 

Unfortunately, for your position the law doesn't share your standard. Please check the law posted above.

Interfering by obstructing or intimidating? The business wasn't interfered with, no one was intimidated, no one was obstructed. They were exercising a Constitutional right. Under California law, they walk.

It also sounds as though you're judging by content. If there was someone there urging people to rely more on walking or bicycles, would your argument still stand? Must everyone who is near a line a people, say theater goers in line to buy tickets, be completely silent?

A couple of people in line might have been irritated, but tough. Up to ninety days in jail if convicted? Sorry, that's the wrong conclusion.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 2WitnessesArrived
 


No he was not at the courthouse he was at the DMV and wrabbit is correct, it is because they had a captive audience. You may have the right to preach in public. You do not however have the right to annoy me while I am waiting to pay the DMV for annoying me for several hours.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


It is a captive audience and it's impeding their business. They do have a right to preach but not to a captive audience and not when it is going to affect business.

What in my post would lead you to believe that I'm judging by content? It seems like you are implying that I only wrote what I wrote because this was a Christian preaching. I used the example of church because it related to this instance.

I'm very much for freedom of religion.

I'm sorry if you weren't meaning to insinuate that I was Christian bashing, it seemed however like you were.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2WitnessesArrived
Here's the video clip: m.youtube.com...

This is an example of what is soon to become world wide for all Christians who spread biblical testimonies for the sake of World Peace, One World Order, and One World Religion under the One World Church. Jesus Christ is returning soon, repent now before its to late, this could be your last warning.

I pray that Lord Jesus Christ will touch the hearts of all who read this post and open your eyes up to the truth and gives everyone the courage to repent and accept them in their heart by the power of the HOLY GHOST. Amen

I'm sorry I have not read the comments yet, just saw this and wanted to say:
Several things have crossed my mind upon thinking about what you have written. Jesus told us long ago that his followers would be arrested ect. I personally don't see how freedom of speech ever really existed, even the bible tells us about how we should speak.
Pretty soon people won't be able to buy nor sell without the mark of the beast, squabbling about "freedom of speech" is a little tedious in comparison to the scope of the reality of the situation. And by the way, all this "One World" stuff is not good for anyone, it's going to happen though.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zetaM7
He was impeding business, these people were waiting in line at the DMV. They either would have to stand there to hold their place and listen to his preaching or they would have to leave and lose their place. If they wanted to conduct their business they literally would have no choice but to listen to this man's sermon.

It's like being forced to "go to church" when all you wanted was to renew your driver's license. It is not the same as preaching on a street corner or on church/home property.



well phrased, thank you ZM

- it is very Cowardice to try preach like that
and tells a lot about the person doing it.

As well about his 'faith' .



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by zetaM7
 

Dear zetaM7,

Forgive me if I misunderstood you. I think my misunderstanding is in at least two places. One is the question of "impeding." I took that to mean that people were being interfered with in their attempts to conduct the business normally conducted at that location.

It appears that the only reason they're unable to conduct normal business is that the DMV isn't open for normal business. Whether the preachers were there or not, it would have no effect on the conduct of business. Nobody would get done more quickly or efficiently if the preachers weren't there. So if the preachers weren't affecting the business in any way, there's no violation.

The second area where I misunderstood you is the area of "content" of the speech. This became a Christian thing in my mind for only two reasons. One, that's what the video was about, and two, the rights involved include freedom of speech and religion. I had no intention of accusing you of Christian bashing, I don't believe you were.

But the underlying question remains. Would it have been acceptable if someone was praising the use of bicycles or a particular brand of pizza, or making some other non-religious announcement? If we say, "No, it's not acceptable, because there is a captive audience," consider other situations where there is a captive audience. May we speak on busses, for example? Or, to the line waiting for tickets? They are a captive audience there too, and might be harrangued by a street corner preacher.

What I was trying to do was discover where your objection was rooted.

And after we've done that, don't we have to deal with the Constitutional protection such speech is allowed? Indeed, it's specially mentioned in the law as a defense.

Certainly no offense intended, and I hope to learn from you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 2WitnessesArrived
 


Better question, what happened to separation of church and state?



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
- and has Nothing to do with "persecution"

or if it is only self-sought 'persecution'

self sought pseudo martyrdome

- and therefore Invalid.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 2WitnessesArrived
 


As Wrabbit points out, this has been posted before—I'd add, probably more than once. There seems to be some misapprehension of the concept of "captive audience." I won't claim that it's solely a Christian mindset; although that would be a tempting conclusion.

Now, before anyone leaps to point out that these people were not "captive" in the sense of being caged or chained or forcibly restricted:

'Captive Audience' Doctrine


Captive-Audience Doctrine Law & Legal Definition

Captive-audience doctrine refers to a legal principle prohibiting a person from making intrusive speech. It is also known as the captive-audience rule. The rule is recognized under both constitutional law and labor law. Under labor law, the rule prohibits a party to a union election from making a speech on company time to a mass assembly of employees within 24 hours of an election.

However, the captive-audience doctrine does not apply when the unwilling audience is located on a public street or sidewalk because they can avoid the unwanted message simply by walking away or averting their eyes. The captive-audience doctrine can be used outside the residential setting when the degree of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure. [Sabelko v. City of Phoenix, 846 F. Supp. 810, 825 (D. Ariz. 1994)].


It should be fairly obvious that the rule doesn't apply only to Christians....
edit on 8/21/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lone12
 



well phrased, thank you ZM

- it is very Cowardice to try preach like that
and tells a lot about the person doing it.

As well about his 'faith'


But, do you believe it is a crime for which they should have been arrested? If so, why?



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by 2WitnessesArrived
 


Better question, what happened to separation of church and state?


It wasn't a state-sponsored activity....

edit on 8/21/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Lone12
 



well phrased, thank you ZM

- it is very Cowardice to try preach like that
and tells a lot about the person doing it.

As well about his 'faith'


But, do you believe it is a crime for which they should have been arrested? If so, why?


*grin*

charles... even *i* wouldnt want to listen to a person like that, wanting to force it upon me by having me trapped to have to listen

it is a devious, fleshy, pathetic way of ' trying to Serve'

[ and you know that i m totally open for the message of the bible]

so yes its a crime.
and minimum a crime against Him.
- He neither 'forced' anything.....did He ?

regards,



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I obviously misunderstood you and I apologize. I just didn't want anyone to think I was trying to attack Christians. I do my best to respect all religious beliefs.

I think I understand where you are coming from as saying would it be the same if it were about bicycles or buses and so on. Honestly it probably wouldn't and it's a kind of double standard I suppose. (not sure if double standard is the right term.)

Like you said there is also the free speech aspect and I'm not sure how that would work out in this particular case.

It just seems that there is a time and place for any kind of religious preaching and while people should certainly have the right to preach, others should have the right to not listen and in this instance what I meant by impeding their business or keeping them captive was solely that they would have to lose their spot in line in order to get away from the preaching.

I do not think the man should have to spend ninety days or whatever it is in jail for this though. I understand what he was trying to do, I just sympathize with the other side as well. I'm no lawyer or legal expert so this is all just a simple opinion.






top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join