"So there are actually two laws, one of them being the FACE Act, the other being a civil rights law, which says it is a crime to intentionally interfere with another person's free exercise of religion. Rarely used, these laws, but they certainly exist, and the conduct that we see here on its face seems to meet the requirements of those laws, replied Honig."
"Is it intentional? Sure. Are they interfering with people's exercise of free religion? You see it on these videos. They intentionally went into a private church. So it is met on the face. Now, I do have to say, DOJ ought to think about the other factors. How long was this interruption? Was it brief? Was it long-term? I mean, was it just a matter of minutes or hours? And second of all, there was no violence used, no injuries."
The Department of Justice is investigating a disruption of a Minneapolis church service and officials say the conduct may constitute criminal interference with religious exercise. Deputy Attorney General noted that prosecutions could lead to jury trials and prison if convictions occur. The FACE Act and a related civil‑rights statute prohibit intentional interference with another person's free exercise of religion, and the observable conduct appears to meet statutory elements. Prosecutors are advised to weigh discretionary factors such as interruption duration and absence of violence or injuries. Potential defense strategy would emphasize the momentary, nonviolent nature of the interruption.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]