From the what were they thinking department comes this story:

Judge Dismisses Charges Against Anti-Gay Protesters

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A Philadelphia judge yesterday dismissed all charges against four men of a Christian evangelical group who were accused of trying to disrupt a homosexual rights event in the fall.
"Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe quickly and summarily dismissed the charges on the grounds that prosecutors had failed to make even a minimal showing of any criminal conduct," said Brian Fahling, a senior trial attorney for the American Family Association (AFA), which represented the defendants. In an interview after the hearing, Mr. Fahling said Judge Dembe held that "First Amendment rights are fundamental" in a democracy and that the "preaching and singing" by the four men at the rally, OutFest, were "classic First Amendment activities."
The men " Michael Marcavage, Dennis Green, James Cruse and Mark Diener " belong to a religious group called Repent America. Each had been charged with felonies, including inciting to riot, ethnic intimidation and criminal conspiracy, in connection with the Oct. 10 protest.
OutFest is a celebration of National Coming Out Day, which encourages homosexuals to proclaim their sexual orientation publicly. The city of Philadelphia provides financial support for the event.
Chuck Volz, who has been organizing OutFest for 10 years, said the event was not "anti-Christian."
"I'm very conservative, very pro-life and very Catholic," said Mr. Volz, who is openly homosexual. He also said he accepts the court's decision.
"I know Judge Dembe, and if she thinks the First Amendment is at play here, we can live with it."
Prosecutors in the case, however, took exception to the ruling.
Charles Ehrlich, a Philadelphia assistant district attorney, said they "disagree" with Judge Dembe's decision that the protesters engaged in legally protected speech.
"The First Amendment does not say you can protest any place, any time," he said.
Mr. Ehrlich said the men had the right to protest at OutFest, but they did not have the right to ignore orders from police and vendors to move to other locations at the event where they would be less obstructive.
Mr. Fahling said his clients weren't obstructive and that his case was bolstered by a videotape of OutFest produced by an independent film company showing "peaceful" protesters.
In all, 11 Repent America protesters were arrested at the event.
One of them "a teenage girl " was held over for trial. She faces a hearing today in juvenile court. Mr. Fahling said he expects the charges against her also to be dropped.
From the beginning, attorneys for AFA said the charges against the defendants were improper and constituted a "profound abuse of power" by law-enforcement personnel.
Even if all criminal charges are dismissed today, Mr. Fahling said this will only end the "first chapter in the Philadelphia 11 saga." He noted that his clients also have filed a federal lawsuit against the city and its police officers.
"We are seeking damages for civil rights violations," he said.

The right not to be offended must have been overlooked in 1789.

Are you suggesting the judge ruled because of some anti-gay bias? If so, what is your basis for saying so?

The point is that in Pennsylvania some prosecutors chose to prosecute a very small group of people for exercising their first amendment rights: hence the heading. It made me curious as well to know if any of our brothers and sisters have prosecuted protesters and if so, how did it go? I know a few years ago in Ft. Worth we prosecuted an Operation Rescue case though I can't for the life of me remember the details.

Where should we draw the line? We know the American Nazi Party can march in Skokie, Ill. if they obtain the proper permit. Remember,at the time that case arose many, many survivors of the Holocaust were still living there.

I guess in sum, the discussion I wanted to begin has to do with the difficultly of holding a political office having sworn to do justice, even when justice means appearing to advocate for a position when in fact we would be advocating for the right to hold a position, however irksome to the majority of our constituency. The impulse to be resisted would be to take up a case and punt to the Judge.

In addition, it seems we as a society are moving toward a credo that says we should live free from all risk and aggravation. Law is piled on law chasing that elusive Utopia.

I thought that a person had the right to peacefully assemble and voice their opinion unless said assembly violated laws designed to maintain public order and governmental operation: Penal Code 38 and 42. Looking at Texas law, assuming that there is an analogous section in Pennsylvania, 42.03 and 42.05 seem relevant. The defense of 42.04 does not apply if a peace officer, fireman, person with authority to control the use of the premises, or any person directly affected by the violation did in fact order the obstruction to cease.

So, what's the problem?

The Article, although written by the Washington Times and therefor internally flawed and misleading by its very nature, seems to indicate that the actors/defendants did in fact attempt to disrupt the meeting. It doesn't go into relevant details such as whether or not the protesters were inside the meeting or assembled peacefully outside the building. (No surprise there on the lack of poignant facts.) Nor does the article make clear whether or not the protesters were given the opportunity to obey the order to move, disperse, or otherwise remedy the violation prior to being arrested.

Clearly according to the charges the protesters were not too faineant to resist arrest.

As far as repugnant demonstrations, the Nazi party had the correct permits and followed the proper march procedures just like any other group would be required to do.

Your First Amendment right is not restricted with regards to saying what you want when you want but it is restricted with regards to speaking whereever you want and however you want.

Guerrilla speech tactics are not protected by the First Amendment.

I think the judge was wrong. The First Amendment is not a tabernacle upon which no law of order may lay. It is a right subject to regulation as all 9 others and the rest of the penumbras and emanations are.

If I want to have a noodling convention with Banjo music and the Banjo Players Association of Tennessee and West Virginia wants to protest that I'm making them look like red necks by associating banjo music and catfish snagging, well they can do that. AND if they do it during my convention within the halls of the convention and disrupt the live demonstration I can ask them to leave. What they can't do is fight off security if I have them removed before Shannon or Lindsey demonstrate proper gill gripping techniques.

Because see, that's against the law.

I would pay money to see Shannon and Lindsey perform such a demonstration at the next annual seminar. Perhaps we could sell tickets to raise funds?

Now, how could you have a noodling convention inside a "hall" unless of course the hall was near the aquarium of the Bass Pro Shop or perhaps on the property of Sea World? I understand that you could have a convention anywhere you want, but if you're going to demonstrate gill-gripping techniques, it seems that Shannon and Lindsey would have to be at least waist-deep in water. Granted, you could probably have the demonstration at the Gonzales, Louisiana Live Snake Farm and Casino, because they do have a couple of tanks there that you might be able to sneak a couple of dating-sized catfish into, but I don't know if Shannon or even Lindsey, for that matter, would care to risk squatting in a tank half-filled with Cotton-mouth moccassins (my spelling might be a little skewed, those are either snakes or shoes).
Even then, the Banjo Players Association of West Virginia (the WVBPA, you've probably seen their bumper stickers) and their Tennessee cousins, the TBPA, not to be confused with TDCAA, would never get caught up in a protest in Louisiana, it's against their charters. On a side note though, I believe that Enemaholics Anonymous might consider conventions and fund-raisers in Louisiana, but it's my considered opinion that they probably wouldn't squat in a snake tank either, unless alcohol or strained turnip greens were on the menu, of course.
So, you see, the Conventioners' and Other Groups of Important People (COGIP)'s Bill of Rights would have nothing to do with most Blue Ridge Mountain-area banjo players, unless of course that happened to be the title of a Bill Monroe tune.
Maybe it could be, come to think of it, the verse could go something like: "I can't hardly git by as it is, then here comes this bill o' rats, well it's 40 cent cotton, 90 cent wheat, how in the world can a poor man eat? Momma, light the lamp, I dropped my uppers and I'm afraid I might step on 'em."
Capo up and play it in A.

I was wondering, before reading Phillip's and AP's posts, how you could involve catfish noodling, banjo playing, and the unspeakable method of alcohol/coffee consumption all in one seemingly unrelated thread.

And then I had my answer.

By the way AP, I was in Barnes and Noble the other day and on the clearance rack they had a Burl Ives CD and in the cover picture, Burl was pictured with a banjo. The point is, did you know or have you ever known that Burl could not only sing and act but was a banjo player as well?

Well, Greg, as a matter of fact, I did know that. You see, we (or us) banjo players belong to a brotherhood, if you will, or if you won't. And, even before I was born which was in the last century believe it or not, Mr. Burl Ives was strumming his banjo. He, now that I mention it, was more of a banjo "strummer" whereas I and my namesake, Earl Scruggs, not that we have the same name, but I like to be his namesake, are "pickers" -- just like the famous Bella Fleck. And by the way, no one has mentioned the fellow from "Cold Mountain" who gave up himself and his friend to the Home Guard. He might actually challenge the "Deliverance" fellow for banjo-player-stereotype-king-of-the-year. You might remember that famous quote, not the one from The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, the other one, from Cold Mountain's banjo picker: "Where's Georgia?"
Other pickers in the brotherhood: Steve Martin, George Hamilton, Willard Fudpucker from the Trinity County Feed & Seed and many other famous Americans.

The mention of pickers, strummers and well-pedigreed groups like the WVBPA leads me to wonder whether an incitement to riot would occur if, during a Tuesday evening banjo jam session, the mandolin players began demanding more than eight measures for their self-indulgent solos. And what if, God forbid, someone brought a Stratocaster (complete with a large reverb amp)? Would such musical hooligans be entitled to the shield of the First Amendment, or would they be rightfully deported back to Hogwaller County?

The protest was a garden variety one. Outfest is held in a public park in Philadelphia and is open to all comers. Apparently the protesters wore t-shirts denouncing the event and read Bible verses over a bullhorn. Some attendees responded by surrounding them with eight-foot panels of insulation and blew whistles to drown out the protesters. So far, so good. It seems about like the protesters at the GOP convention in NY this summer or any other bunch with too much time on their hands. The district attorney responded by charging them with five misdemeanor and three felony charges including incitement to riot, organized criminal activity and hate crimes.

This is the kind of overcharging that hurts our profession. Even an official with GLAD is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer opining that prosecution of this group under hate crime legislation weakens the future application of the statute and is akin to using a "sledgehammer to swat a fly." The judge watched an eleven minute video before pouring out the state. She said it was a case of both sides being "aggravated." There was no question of trespass, lack of permit or obstruction of a road or highway. We may not enjoy an unfettered right to free speech or "guerrilla speech," (whatever that is) but the right to peacefully assemble and protest in a public place is still protected. What is not protected is the notion that if it irritates me, it must be illegal

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 02-23-05 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 02-23-05 at .]

Then, I agree with you. I especially like the sledgehammer to swat a fly comment.

But, the facts you've now presented weren't in the Washington Times article. Just one more example of bonehead journalism. I was wondering why they charged felony charges. I imagined some sort of actual injury 'riot'- Goes to show how important reporting actual facts might be to the impression the reader gains from what is presented. (Not a shot at you, I'm just frequently disappointed with journalism.)

Clearly given the above charges and facts, the prosecution was remarkably overzealous.

However, (Again, assuming Texas law) if the demonstration participants were asked to leave, they should have left or faced simple charges. Maybe Hate Crime should apply. The protesters were picking out this convention because of sexual orientation. I don't see how OCA 71.02 would apply because they haven't engaged in an activity that qualifies.

Re: Guerrilla Speech
A friend of mine in college had a group of actors that would set up an impromptu stage in the middle of the day at a random location and perform a quick act of Shakespeare, usually Hamlet. They called it Guerrilla Theater. I appropriated the term and transmogrified it one day in a Political Science class applying it to inappropriate and disorderly protest speech.

[This message was edited by Philip D Ray on 02-23-05 at .]

Scott, I surmise that you are correct with your comments about electic guitarist being welcome at the WVBPA gatherings, unless of course you are talking about a steel guitarist. I suspect that surveillance is immediately placed on anyone in the vicinity that appears with a Strat, Les Paul or the like, particularly if they are in possession of an amplifier with more than 10 watts, or an amplifier that uses tubes rather than solid state.

And heaven forbid a drummer appear with drumkit AND an electric guitarist with a reverb amplifier at their gatherings, as that leads them to call out the "WVBPA-TFOMWILTUBPWOHSFOFMTACARM" (Task Force On Musicians With Instruments Louder Than Us Banjo Players Who Often Have Some Form Of Formal Musical Training And Can Actually Read Music) and, as I have heard, can lead to all kinds of ugly confrontations, often involving catfish.