Re: It's the End of the World as We Know It...

From: Mark Jutland <jutland@norwest.com>
Subject: Re: It's the End of the World as We Know It...
Date: 26 Apr 2001 15:49:05 -0500
Message-ID: <e02het0o89vf2fgbuos7ic5k0d29sojoev@4ax.com>

On 26 Apr 2001 20:31:23 -0000, Cheradenine Zakalwe <zakalwe@nym.alias.net> wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>..and I feel ill.
>
>I have yet to see a report from a poster I trust indicating
>just what happened, but it would appear that, while the
>jury could not agree on the bogus "terrorism" charges,
>Keith was found guilty under the 422.6 statute. This is
>extremely bad. Wheras the "terrorism" charge was a
>one-off fluke based on taking jokes out of context, Keith's
>picketing was an unexceptional activity for anti-Scientology
>activists. Unless and until Keith's conviction on the "interfering
>with a religion" statute is reversed, picketing and leafleting
>of the "Church" of Scientology can be construed as illegal
>in California, and certainly will be construed as illegal in Hemet.
>
>Welcome to Hell.
>
I don't see it as bad as you say. The text of the statute reads:

(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics. (b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics.

In other words, their[sic] has to be force or threat of force, or damage to the orgranization in question. Whether the law is vague or unconstitutional on some other basis I don't know. I agree that it is very bad for California picketers, just don't give them any other reason to say that you are threatening force. That is, don't let Rice take GPS readings and make jokes about missiles while you are picketing. As for me, I am not going to publically come out against the cult. They have found enough holes in the US legal system to hide out like a moray eel. Not much I can do about that directly. Of course I can send out information and pointers to web pages anonymously, so I can do something anyway.