It is an evangelizing movement and has been from the beginning
Sounds like Christianity is a punishment, not a blessing
Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Ahhhhhhhh, that makes sense. Thank you.
You’d be cited for displaying intelligence in the courtroom.
with circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one.
I don’t care how well you perceive my answer.
You are the person who brought up Roger Stone. I can’t help it if you don’t know enough of the specifics of what and why Roger Stone was issued a gag order. (He was reprimanded by the court for using social media to threaten a judge.)
This is not even remotely similar to what is happening to the protesters in Portland.
But judges can make up whatever restrictions they damn well please. /s
Um. They asked lawyers that question. It’s pretty ingrained in attorneys to qualify pretty much any statement of opinion. “Almost certainly” in lawyer speak means “Yes it is unconstitutional but we have no definitive case law stating that.”
ETA: and there you go. I just qualified my own statement. I’m not sure exactly when that gets sewn into lawyer thinking but it does.
For what it’s worth (not a groat!) the word "secular" is a weasely word used in a lot of ways to mean “somehow less than fully religious” (it originally meant "“living in the world not belonging to a religious order”)
But Herrrrrrre’s Modern day Webster:
Definition of secular
- of or relating to the worldly or temporal secular concerns; not ecclesiastical or clerical, but rather secular courts or secular landowners
- not bound by monastic vows or rules specifically of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation a secular priest
- occurring once in an age or a century
- an ecclesiastic (such as a diocesan priest) not bound by monastic vows or rules a member of the secular clergy
So, as a good-god-fear’n-christian Layman, you presumably believe in some sort of “Lord”? (nah… neither do i)
Exactly, because the “previous case” doesn’t apply. Those weren’t release requirements, they were re-release requirements, after another crime had been committed.
“But I’m not protesting against, I’m advocating for. Says so on my sign judge.”
These conditions are repugnant and should be found unconstitutional, but this is far from a slam dunk under current law.
First of all, bail conditions regularly have restrictions that limit first amendment rights in some way. Gag orders, restrictions on associating with certain people, etc. are nothing unusual. The state will argue that this is just a version of an order to refrain from associating with known gang members or something similar, and a LOT of courts are willing & eager to buy that bullshit.
If you want to make this a slam dunk, as it should be, then give money to the ACLU, and be a strong advocate for civil liberties for the unpopular and unpleasant—it’s the only way to protect them for the good eggs.
Sure Judge, but please just initial this next to my note there that says “Except where doing so would violate my 1st amendment constitutional rights”, happy to oblige.
aha! but how do they know you’ve attended if it’s anonymous! 
[ actually… how do they?! ]
( if we actually invested in public healthcare, then there would be competing, non-religious organizations for alcohol and drug recovery. and with the right laws, there wouldn’t be pressure to make it a “pre-trial release” anyway… because less people would be in jail standing before a judge.
more on topic: i’m sure there’s tons of racial bias in who is directed to these programs vs. jail )
so “almost certainly” can’t trump qualified immunity.
At the beginning or end (whenever I went, it was both) the facilitator/whoever ran the meeting would announce “Hey anyone who needs their court papers signed off, come to me after the meeting”
That seemed like totally standard operating procedure.
