In the past few weeks, we have watched organized, pre-planned protesters in Minnesota attempting to kill a law enforcement officer with a vehicle, intentionally and violently damage the tail lights on law enforcement’s vehicle, bite the finger of a law enforcement officer, and commit other crimes in pursuit of the larger — and illegal — goal of attempting to impede law enforcement. Other than the attempt to kill and maim officers by ramming them with a vehicle, perhaps the worst criminal conduct occurred when activists invaded, harassed, and threatened parishioners at a Church celebrating mass. Such actions clearly violate statutory protections designed to prevent persons from making a political or social “point” by preventing others from exercising their First Amendment rights.
First we have The Klan Act (See https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-enforcement-acts/) stating:
Be it enacted…That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress….
Sec. 2. That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States…or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging the duties thereof…or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his person while engaged in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office…or by force, intimidation, or threat to deter any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court…or shall conspire together for the purpose in any manner impeding, hindering, obstructing or defeating the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen of the United States the due and equal protection of the laws…or threat to prevent any citizen of the United States lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advocacy in a lawful manner towards or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector of President or Vice-President of the United States, or as a member of the Congress of the United States, or to injure any such citizen in his person or property on account of such support or advocacy, each and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high crime….
Sec. 3. That in all cases where insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies in any State shall so obstruct or hinder the execution of the laws thereof, and of the United States, as to deprive any portion or class of the people of such State of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities, or protection, named in the Constitution and secured by this act, and the constituted authorities of such State shall either be unable to protect, or shall, from any cause, fail in or refuse protection of the people in such rights, such facts shall be deemed a denial by such State of the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States; and in all such cases…it shall be lawful for the President, and it shall be his duty to take such measures, by the employment of the militia or the land and naval forces of the United States, or of either, or by other means, as he may deem necessary for the suppressions of such insurrection, domestic violence, or combinations….
Sec. 6. That any person or persons, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done and mentioned in the second section of this act are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the same, shall neglect or refuse to do so, and such wrongful act shall be committed, such person or persons shall be liable to the person injured . . . for all damages caused by any such wrongful act which such first-named person or persons by reasonable diligence, could have prevented . . . .
Just as pertinent is the FACE Act, which provides:
(a) Prohibited Activities.—Whoever—
(1)
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2)
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
(3)
intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship,
shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.
Such laws have stood the test of time and challenges that state these laws are illegal because they criminalize behavior classified as protected by the First Amendment, as if someone’s own First Amendment rights immunize someone form civil or criminal liability when they who attempt to suppress the exercise of First Amendment rights of others. In Minnesota, a so-called journalist, who does not deserve any further notoriety, has recently made this claim of First Amendment protection of his criminal behavior, a claim that has no legal merit when these statutes are viewed in an ideologically neutral manner. Not only has this vile individual been caught on video bragging about planning to interrupt a church service, but there is no evidence that he, for example, stood outside the church and recorded and commented upon the hideous and illegal actions of the aggressive activists against the parishioners.
First we have The Klan Act (See https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-enforcement-acts/) stating:
Be it enacted…That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress….
Sec. 2. That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States…or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging the duties thereof…or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his person while engaged in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office…or by force, intimidation, or threat to deter any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court…or shall conspire together for the purpose in any manner impeding, hindering, obstructing or defeating the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen of the United States the due and equal protection of the laws…or threat to prevent any citizen of the United States lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advocacy in a lawful manner towards or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector of President or Vice-President of the United States, or as a member of the Congress of the United States, or to injure any such citizen in his person or property on account of such support or advocacy, each and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high crime….
Sec. 3. That in all cases where insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies in any State shall so obstruct or hinder the execution of the laws thereof, and of the United States, as to deprive any portion or class of the people of such State of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities, or protection, named in the Constitution and secured by this act, and the constituted authorities of such State shall either be unable to protect, or shall, from any cause, fail in or refuse protection of the people in such rights, such facts shall be deemed a denial by such State of the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States; and in all such cases…it shall be lawful for the President, and it shall be his duty to take such measures, by the employment of the militia or the land and naval forces of the United States, or of either, or by other means, as he may deem necessary for the suppressions of such insurrection, domestic violence, or combinations….
Sec. 6. That any person or persons, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done and mentioned in the second section of this act are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the same, shall neglect or refuse to do so, and such wrongful act shall be committed, such person or persons shall be liable to the person injured . . . for all damages caused by any such wrongful act which such first-named person or persons by reasonable diligence, could have prevented . . . .
Just as pertinent is the FACE Act, which provides:
(a) Prohibited Activities.—Whoever—
(1)
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2)
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
(3)
intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship,
shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.
Such laws have stood the test of time and challenges that state these laws are illegal because they criminalize behavior classified as protected by the First Amendment, as if someone’s own First Amendment rights immunize someone form civil or criminal liability when they who attempt to suppress the exercise of First Amendment rights of others. In Minnesota, a so-called journalist, who does not deserve any further notoriety, has recently made this claim of First Amendment protection of his criminal behavior, a claim that has no legal merit when these statutes are viewed in an ideologically neutral manner. Not only has this vile individual been caught on video bragging about planning to interrupt a church service, but there is no evidence that he, for example, stood outside the church and recorded and commented upon the hideous and illegal actions of the aggressive activists against the parishioners.
Instead, this person and the others who participated in the denial of the civil rights of those at the church and should now face the full criminal penalty provided for by the FACE and KLAN Acts.
