Pastor Arrested For Reading The Bible In Front Of A DMV

arrestedpastor

In California, a pastor was arrested for reading the bible aloud outside a DMV.

The justification for the arrest was that while his free speech in reading the bible is protected, he was impeding business at the DMV and forcing people at the DMV to listen to his speech. Which seems like a bit of a stretch.

He was standing 50 feet away from the entrance to the DMV, and certainly wasn’t blocking anyone from entering, but he was on public property so it wasn’t like he was trespassing either. What’s more, the DMV was closed at the time of his arrest.

It seems the authorities in this case are asserting a right that the public at large not be offended by speech. Which is a silly standard. You don’t have a right not to be offended. If that were the standard by which we measured allowable free speech, whether it takes place on a public sidewalk or on a blog, we’d have no speech at all.

I’d like to see if the authorities would apply this standard to the Occupy Wall Street protesters. How is it that a pastor, reading a bible outside a DMV is a public disturbance worthy of arrest while the occupiers got away with months worth of violence and vandalism in the name of political speech?

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Gosh!  Where—as we go back in history—have we seen this very same sort of thing?

    • $8194357

      I know nothing, I know nothing….
      Says sargent Shultz….
      Stalag 13 in our future?

      • borborygmi

        Dibs on bunk by the door

        • $8194357

          I want to be next to the pot belly stove gurgle, 
          or the draft from the door
          could freeze ya out.. 

          • two_amber_lamps

            Borby and his bolshevik friends belong in another bunkhouse…  not that they have anything to worry about…  brainwashed prole that he is.

      • two_amber_lamps

        I KNOW NOTHING!…. splendid!

        Too bad Hogan’s Heroes was a comedy… what’s happening in this country is a sickening tragedy.

        • $8194357

          It is what it is…

          But in the name of ?????

          Whatever they want to call it for what ever cause or group will bite down on it…

  • Roy_Bean

    “If that were the standard by which we measured allowable free speech, whether it takes place on a public sidewalk or on a blog, we’d have no speech at all.”

    That is their goal isn’t it?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      A fair point.

  • Captornado

    Peoples Republic of Commiefornia.

    • $8194357

      Barry said
      “If indeed we ever were,
      we are no longer a Christian nation, huh?”

    • FaithShield

      Why are the poorest states in the union red states?

      • Jfisher17

        I don’t know. Why are the dumbest blue?

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    They don’t bust liberals in California that are protesting….

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Yeah, a pastor reading a bible outside of the DMV is a public disruption, but Occupy Wall Street protesters crapping in the street in Oakland is free and protected speech.

      • Econwarrior

        So, free exercise of religion is treated as a criminal act, whereas vandalism by political operatives is regarded as “free speech”.  The world is now officially upside down.

        • FaithShield

          Why are the poorest states in the union red states?

          • Jfisher17

            Because as producers all their tax dollars go to support the slackers in the blue states?

        • $8194357

          And inside out…
          Just the way marxists of old said political correct
          “cultural terrorism” would work..

  • SigFan

    A pastor reading a bible aloud on the sidewalk get arrested, meanwhile, Occutards sporting signs saying Kill the Cops and destroying private property are left alone.  Sounds about right for CA – and if we don’t stop the left soon just about anywhere in America.

    • $8194357

      When Christianity is banned in the public square,
      what fills the void created????
      Sharia in our future…
      Or “just” fascism “without” the desquise of a religion ?

      • Captornado

        What fills the void?

        Probably gun fire.

      • SigFan

         Militant Islam is my guess.  There are going to be a lot of people persecuted in the end times as we know.  This is just the beginning.

        • borborygmi

          I believe that it is written that man will not know when it is the end of time. 

          • Camsaure

            But also says, that he will recognize the “birth pangs”. A lttle omission on your part?

          • $8194357

            Comming ever nearer until the time of
             its birth is at hand.

          • SigFan

            Never said I knew when the end would be, but Biblical prophecy does identify the signs of the beginning of the end. Many of those are in evidence today.

            Added:
            What the Bible says is that man cannot know when Christ will return, that only God knows the appointed hour.

          • $8194357

            The end times “started” with Christs Acension
             and will
            be fullfilled with His Return in like manner…

            On a Cloud in Full Power and Glory…

            Just like the Jews were lookin for Him to Come the First time.. 

            IMHO

          • stanta

             When at retreats when people ask me when the end times will be I say for me it could be in 2 minutes….be prepared.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    The gop echo chamber is strong today.

    So this guy got arrested a year ago and Pox runs a story about it teasing it with “a new controversy brewing in California” without one single update.

    The Pox guy asked “so what came of all this”? The other goofball didn’t have an answer.

    The interwebs say: “In September, Los Angeles-based U.S.
    District Judge Dolly M. Gee suspended further hearings on the lawsuit
    until the criminal case against Coronado and Mackey is resolved.”

    gop has lost it’s economic attack line, it’s national security attack line, it’s Obama wants to take away every single gun attack lie and are left with the goofball War on Christianity lie.

    Nutters crack me up.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Rob can’t let a manufactured controversy go to waste, he get’s paid to lie.

      • FaithShield

        … the above comment paid for by the Koch Brothers™

        • Jfisher17

          Like your’s was paid by George Soros? Nice try.

          • $8194357

            Move On dot org

        • two_amber_lamps

           Lol…  wtf do the Koch brothers have to do with ANYTHING?? 

          Talk about a leftist manufactured rally cry…  it’s be funny if it wasn’t a tragic indicator as to how deluded the left is.

    • Econwarrior

      The liar desperately tries to change the subject.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    Since when are people allowed to preach religion on public property?  Anyone want to explain where this can be done? 

    I’m sure conservatives everywhere would really love it if the preacher was Muslim. But hey, it’s all about repeating the narrative of the white-conservative-male-victim-card.

    • Captornado

      The wingbats of the Westboro church do it all the time. If you agree with it or find it disgusting is irrelevant. Free speech is free speech or it isn’t. I guess you prefer to no squelch it.

    • Econwarrior

      “Since when are people allowed to preach religion on public property?”

      The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
      Read with comprehension, little hanni.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Um, there is no law prohibiting him from practicing his relegion.  He can excercise his religion at home or church.

        Also, the question was posed to adults, not children or whackadoodles, like yourself.

        • Econwarrior

          Little hanni: read all the words, with comprehension.  It  says “free exercise of religion”, not “free exercise of religion at home or in a church”.  Our Constitution affirms our rights on public property; too bad you’re too stupid to understand that.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yeah, he still has the right to freely exercise his religion.  Your cut and paste doesn’t say he has the right to do it everywhere.

            Show me where it says he can do it on public property.

          • Econwarrior

            I didn’t “cut and paste” anything, little hanni, so you lied about that.  Show us where free speech is limited due to location; please quote the Constitution.
            There are no limitations to free speech, which is why it’s called “free”.  Sorry you are too dumb to understand that.

          • Guest

            In the mind (LOL) of short, balding little hanni, and other dem/libs, there is no constitution. Don’t expect him to quote anything from that document.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Why would bush lock people up in cages and call them “free speech zones” if location were not relevant to where you can express your free speech?
            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/First_amendment_zone1.jpg

            I also enjoy a full head of hair, and incredible good looks.

          • stanta

             Not only Bush, the Dems did it at the last convention (was it Denver?) and they had cages set up to put the protesters in. At the Republican convention not so much.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            There are regulations applied to first amendment rights, Santa, you are right.

            Obama hasn’t restricted first amendment rights like bush had.  bush appears to have no respect for the constitution, eh?

            Sort of makes this whole contrived controversy silly, dudinit?

          • Econwarrior

            obama, with his attempt to  destroy the free exercise of religion with his imposition of a birth control mandate, as violated the First Amendment more egregiously than any previous President.

          • 2hotel9

            Yes, why did Bill Clinton put that policy in place at Secret Service in 1994, tranni? Enlighten us.

          • two_amber_lamps

            And a TAX LIEN!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You lie again, BigGovernmentR180.  You said there are no limitations to free speech, but that’s a lie.

            The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech. Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Furthermore, even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the basis of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny” (i.e., if the government shows that the 
            restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest”). 

            http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
            Educate yourself.

          • Econwarrior

             You lie again, little hanni; there is nothing  about the location of the free speech, which was your original lie.  As usual, you change the subject, while piling one lie on top of another.  Pathological.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place,…

            Lying or being ignorant is no excuse for you, R180, but it certainly is expected.

            You lose.

          • Econwarrior

            No resturiction as to content, little hanni.  And no prohibition about speaking in public.  You continue to strike out.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s “restriction”, not “restruction”, and I said regulation.

            Thanks for proving that I was right about a time and place, the place he was regulated from speaking was on the public property, which is what I said.

            The rest is just your mental disorder an disability trying to distract from the fact that you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • 2hotel9

             Yes, tranni, you leftarded c*nts hate free speech. We. Get. It.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession
          • Jfisher17

            Please don’t.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Nobody said your willful ignorance wasn’t achieved without effort.

          • Econwarrior

            You are the last person who is qualified to speak about willful ignorance, little hanni.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yes, R180, you are clearly more intimate with willful ignorance than I.

          • Econwarrior

            I have had to deal with your willful ignorance for years.  In your ignorance, you aren’t even aware of it.

          • Guest

             There was a reason your daddy always told you shut up. Even a mongoloid knew you were a dumb piece of shit.

          • Jfisher17

            Nobody said you had good rebuttals.

          • Guest

             And your tax lien wasn’t achieved without evading.

          • 2hotel9

             Yes, Free Speech Zones, a creation of universitys and colleges run by Progressive Democrats in the 1980s to silence students who were exercising 1st Amendment right of free speech. 

          • Jfisher17

            Show me where it says he can’t.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech. Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Furthermore, even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the basis of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny” (i.e., if the government shows that the 
            restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest”).

            http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
            Educate yourself.

          • Econwarrior

            Still nothing about location, little hanni; you’re swinging wildly and missing, as usual.  When smacked with the truth, you try to change the subject.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It says the First Amendment protection may be subject to TIME AND PLACE, you ignorant ass.

          • Econwarrior

            Right, but not content; the speech is still free, liar.

          • banjo kid

             When we exercise our free speech we need to mindful of others right to speak and if they had set up a time to speak then we should honor that time .  Freedom of speech did not give us a right to drown any one out . I believe that was the reason for the location being away from the area, they would not wait until the group had their say but would interrupt like so many cry babies . The very reason the court decided like they did was to cover that aspect of it . others came along and added to it . the Pastor was not violating any law and stands to win a civil suit against the city over this . If I am preaching on the street I have a right to do that because I am not interrupting any one else’s speech that was going on or was predetermined. You can ask our Mayor how that works she lost to our pastor and she then  invited him to preach on our streets here in my town. They tried to take our camera also but was denied . We also have the right to  pass out leaflets and we also know that people can just refuse them . I defend any ones right to say what they want right or wrong. I may disagree with them but they are allowed to express their thoughts.Free speech zones are unconstitutional but when some disrupts a gathering they should be removed .

          • Jfisher17

            And none of that applies in this case. A “significant government interest”? Sure, Hanni, sure.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You clearly didn’t read the PDF, and you certainly wouldn’t know what it said if you had.

            Let’s try it a different way.  Why do you think bush was able to lock up protestors in “free speech zones” 1 mile away from his speech?  Explain!!!!

            Explain!!!

            Explain!!!

          • Jfisher17

            Right off the top of my head, I’d say that the  protection of  President Bush at the time, (or any president), would surely satisfy the “significant government interest” clause you mentioned, no?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You refer to the top of your head because you certainly wont find anything in it.

            Try again!

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

          • 2hotel9

            Because Bill Clinton had that policy put in place with Secret Service in the 1990s, tranni. Tell us why Bill Clinton did that.

          • Econwarrior

            First, he didn’t “lock them up”, not did he restrict the content of their speech.  Due to their violence, they were restricted as to location, but not as to content.  The speech was still free.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, andProtest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression. A Free Speech Zone is more restrictive than an Exclusion zone.The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are “Orwellian”,[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service forPresident George W. Bush and other members of his administration.[3] Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush’s presidency that their scope has been greatly expanded.[4]

          • stanta

             Missed this “During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up a “designated protest zone”[5] so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young “put us in a free-speech cage.”[6] “Protest zones” were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Thanks Santa, in your zeal for partisanship, you managed to prove there are times where first amendment rights are subject to regulations.

          • stanta

             No Hanni, I proved that the Republicans weren’t the first to do it. It all started with the Democrats. How can you blame Bush for just continuing the tradition.
            I can wait to see what happens at the Democratic Convention this year when Occupy____ shows up.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Thanks for proving bush enforced the regulations to First Amendment rights Santa, BigGovernmentR180 was confused about that!

          • Econwarrior

            “To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be
            neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant
            government interest, and leave open alternative channels of
            communication.”

            This refutes your lies, little hanni.  No restriction as to content, so the speech is still free, just the location is managed, if it’s a disruptive mob.
            It’s about the behavior, not the speech.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Show us where free speech is limited due to location; please quote the Constitution.
            There are no limitations to free speech, which is why it’s called “free”.  Sorry you are too dumb to understand that”

            You were wrong BigGovernmentR180.

            Eat your words, son.

  • Neiman

    If any speech, even if it is Christian or Muslim, short of calling for violence, cannot be exercised on ANY public property, then free speech no longer exists,. Someone should tell Gay Bob and Hannah, street preaching started with the Prophets, was practiced by Christ, John the Baptist, the Apostles, myriads of Christian ministers and the only place where it was forbidden or restricted was in places like the Soviet Union, the PRC, other Communist and Muslim States. The former being fellow travelers with our resident liberals. Yes, like their communist fellows, these liberals approve of criminalizing Christian Speech, because liberalism is at its heart – antichrist.

    • $8194357

      Yup….

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    State and local.
    Hemet, CA is a red district. 

    Why do they hate Jesus freedom in the red districts?

    • Econwarrior

      Still desperately trying to change the subject.

  • awfulorv

    Not bailing California out of it’s financial black hole, as he will likely do if re-elected, is reason enough to throw he, and his wife’s, delusional, thieving, asses out of the White House. 

    • FaithShield

      We don’t need your help go back to your poverty ridden Red State.  Enjoy the welfare dollars my taxes pay for your backwards economy.

      • Econwarrior

        CA is one of the most poverty ridden States now, and it is bright blue.  You lie.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          Big 180 McCain voter and class warrior water boy, please link us to something you’ve been proven correct on.

          The most interesting findings in this release were the state-by-state figures, especially when compared to national averages.

          http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/09/16/americas-poorest-states/

          • Econwarrior

            Just like you to desperately try to change the subject to lying personal attack when you have no facts, and your commie ideology is refuted.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Big 180 McCain voter logic:

            Answer off topic question with lie.

            Respond to refudiation of lie by accusing commenter of diverting the topic.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            R180 is a quack. 

          • Econwarrior

            Fact-free as usual, little hanni.  You’re such a child.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What I stated was a fact.

          • Econwarrior

            Your delusions aren’t facts, little hanni.  You’re badly confused.

          • Econwarrior

            CA is deeply in debt, FACT.  You lie, and then you try to distract with lying smear when your lies are smacked with the truth.
            Your only tactics are deceptive cherry picking and changing the subject, liar.

          • 2hotel9

             And more lies and sh*t spew from boob, as usual.

          • Jvette

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

            I noticed when looking over the link you gave, that other than Mississippi, the poverty rates in those states were tied for 11th, 7th, 9th etc….so I wondered, what is the rate, state by state?

            Hmmmm, according to the link I posted, the poverty rate is not always tied to the average income. In fact, the rate in several blue states is just as bad and D.C., the RICHEST place in America, has the highest poverty rate.

            Also, the cost of living is much lower in a lot of those states, so it is almost apples to oranges to compare the average income in Mississippi to that of California or New York, two states with very high costs of living.

            Income does not relate to intelligence or to hard work, which seems to be what your post seems to infer.

  • borborygmi

    over reach. 

    • Captornado

      just like Obamacare.

  • headward

    Why didn’t the reporter get arrested? Everybody there was forced to see and hear the right to a free press.

    I wonder if it was a muslim reading the koran.  I doubt the arrest would have taken place.

    • FaithShield

      everything you said is wrong

  • 2hotel9

    Now he should get himself a Qur’an, go to the exact same spot, and start reading it aloud.

    • Neiman

      If he did, the police would not dare confront him and godless liberals (I repeat myself) would be crying about their constutional rights. This is their (liberals) raging Christ hatred.

  • Chris

    The Pastor had violated California Penal Code Section 602.1.

    • Neiman

      No State may infringe by their laws/codes/policies on our First Amendment Rights. That ordinance/law is unconstitutional. The police should be sued for enforcing such an unconstitutional law and you should go back to school and study the Constitution.

      • Chris

         Don’t kill the messenger, I didn’t pass the law nor did I do the arresting.  However I have a suspicious feeling that you’re weighing in because the person happened to be a Christian.  If he had been a Muslim reading the Qur’an and he got arrested, would you still be up in arms?

        • Neiman

          I have always, passionately defended the Bill of Rights no matter whom is speaking. I am not a liberal and do not fear free speech like wingnuts.

          • Chris

            Then this is not an issue about Christian vs non-Christian, but rather state law vs Federal Constitution.

          • Neiman

            It is about the Bill of Rights!

          • Chris

            Well, during the Bush years, protesters were boxed up  in “free speech” zones, and they would be arrested if they protested outside the zone.  Does that not trample on people’s rights by not being able to express free speech wherever they want?

          • Econwarrior

            “Well, during the Bush years, protesters were boxed up  in “free speech”
            zones, and they would be arrested if they protested outside the zone.”

            Only after they became violent and committed criminal acts.  Nice liberal cherry-pick.

          • ellinas1

            BS. Got any proof of that?

          • 2hotel9

             And lookee here! ec8nt stumbles in to prove the leftards have lost, yet again.

            Go ahead, ec*nt. put the exclamation point on another lost thread. Post another comment. I order you to.

          • ellinas1

            ZZZZZzzzzzz

          • 2hotel9

             Yes, ec*nt, we all get it, you are a stupid idiot and can not stop yourself from obeying my commands. So, prove it again. Post another comment. I order you to.

          • banjo kid

             Forget it it would not make a difference in how you think . lost words. no post on the subject for me today .

          • ellinas1

            And it makes a difference how you think?
            BS. Got any proof of that? 

          • Chris

             The pastor in the DMV refused to leave when asked to by the guard, so he also broke the law.  He could have kept preaching across the street.

          • 2hotel9

            According to the police he was on public property, not state owned property, so he broke no law.

          • Econwarrior

            He wasn’t in the DMV; he was across the street.  You didn’t read all the words, I guess.

          • stanta

             During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up a “designated protest zone”[5] so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young “put us in a free-speech cage.”[6] “Protest zones” were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions

          • 2hotel9

             Bill Clinton put the policy in place at Secret Service in 1994. Educate yourself.

          • 2hotel9

             Yes, that happened because Bill Clinton put that policy into effect with Secret Service in the 1990s. Good job, chrissee, you have achieved total irrelevance . Good job.

          • Chris

            The free speech zones happened as early as 1988:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

            So Clinton couldn’t have started it in the 90s. and plus it has been used by liberals as well as conservatives, including Bush.  Educate YOURSELF!!!

          • 2hotel9

             Oh, poor little chrissee girl, Democrats used their control of college and university campusi to institute “free speech zones” as early as 1988.  Bill Clinton put it into place as ploicy in the Secret Service in 1994.

            Educate yourself, c*nt.

        • Econwarrior

          It’s part of your left wing war on Christianity.

        • 2hotel9

           Yes, Nman would, as he has in the past.

  • Spartacus

    Would he have been arrested if he had been reading the Koran?

    • Jfisher17

      Only if he had his suicide vest on.

    • Sparkie Arbuckle

      I doubt it, some cracker would have shot the Koran reader before anyone could arrest him.

      • Jfisher17

        Which would be proper before he blows himself up.

        • Sparkie Arbuckle

          And they arrested this Bible thumper before he raped an adolescent male.

          • Onslaught1066

             Do you know for a fact this pastor is greek?

            BTW about your wife, Does death become her?

          • 2hotel9

             You mean the way your Muslim heroes rape adolescent males every day?

          • Econwarrior

            That’s only because the Catholic Church hired homosexuals to be priests.

          • $8194357

            Politicall correct Diversity laws followed perhaps?….

          • Sparkie Arbuckle

            ‘Hired’?

  • suitepotato

     In San Francisco, CA they hold live gay sex festivals on the streets where exhibition masturbation, oral, and anal sex take place along with pissing and BDSM. A man reads from a bible on a California street, and gets arrested. And what happens? Hannatard defends it.

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    My opinion is that his lawyer blows.

    • Onslaught1066

       Unlike your wife who wouldn’t touch you if you held a gun to her head… well, I can’t really say that.

      It’s the only way she would touch you.

      Yeah! second amendment.

  • Metallica1dude

    You can do it your own way if its done just how I say.

    • Sparkie Arbuckle

      Exactly.  A Koran reader would have been impugned by all regs on this blog.

      • 2hotel9

        Really, sparkie? You are the one spewing hatred for religious believers on this blog.

  • Metallica1dude

    Free Speech for the Dumb.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    The confused mind of BigGovernmentR180 and McCain voter on display:

    When I told R180 that the freedom to practice religion exists, but you just can’t do it on public property, he claimed there were NO restrictions to free speech.  He was wrong, he went in a shame spiral and lied in an attempt to distract from his failure.  Observe:

    Hannitized: “Yeah, he still has the right to freely exercise his religion.  Your cut and paste doesn’t say he has the right to do it everywhere.  Show me where it says he can do it on public property.”

    R180: “Show us where free speech is limited due to location; please quote the Constitution.

    There are no limitations to free speech, which is why it’s called “free”.  Sorry you are too dumb to understand that.”

    So I provide the information he requested, showing there are regulations that limit speech due to location.  His response?  Lie!!

    To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication.

    R180: “This refutes your lies, little hanni.  No restriction as to content, so the speech is still free, just the location is managed, if it’s a disruptive mob.  It’s about the behavior, not the speech.”

    Yeah, R180 and McCain voter, that’s what I said!!!!

    YOU LOSE!!!

    • Econwarrior

      The minister wasn’t a disruptive mob, delusional little hanni, so you lose again.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Thanks for admitting and telling us in your own words that there are limitations to free speech, even though you first said there weren’t. 

        Ouch!

        • Econwarrior

          Wrong again, little hanni: there are limitations on the location of speech, but not the content, and this minister was persecuted for the content of his speech.  You just have to read with comprehension.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            R180 (NOW): “little hanni: there are limitations on the location of speech, 

            R180 (BEFORE): “Show us where free speech is limited due to location; please quote the Constitution.There are no limitations to free speech, which is why it’s called “free”.  Sorry you are too dumb to understand that.”

            You’re a joke BigGovernmentR180 and McCain voter.Why do you keep telling me what I told you while pretending you didn’t deny what you are admitting now?BTW, I never said there was a limitation on content.  You idiot.

          • ellinas1

            The crazy nut got busted lying again?
            Damn! 

          • Econwarrior

            You lie again, little Daffy.

          • ellinas1

            You lie again, big queer.

          • Econwarrior

            Take your thosazine, little Daffy; you’re piling one lie on top of another…again.  Get help.

          • ellinas1

            ZZZzzzzz!

          • 2hotel9

            And you prove you have lost yet another thread, ec*nt. Go ahead. reemphasized that you have lost, again. Post another comment. I order you to. 

          • Econwarrior

            Again, little hanni, as I know you have mental problems:  you claimed the minister was persecuted for exercising his free speech rights on public property, but the truth is, he was persecuted for the content of his speech, and there are no Constitutional limitations on the content of free speech.
            I’ll just keep smacking you with the truth every time you lie.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No need to lie to change the subject BigGovernmentR180, McCain voter and now famous sockpuppet, you said there are limitations of speech based on location:

            R180 (NOW): “little hanni: there are limitations on the location of speech,

            R180 (BEFORE): “Show us where free speech is limited due to location; please quote the Constitution.There are no limitations to free speech, which is why it’s called “free”.  Sorry you are too dumb to understand that.”

            This certainly does explain a lot, doesn’t it R180.

          • 2hotel9

             Lie to change the subject. Yes, tranni, that is what you do in every, single thread you lie to change the subject of. We. Get. It.

          • Guest

            Hey, it’s “plugs” Bonilla!!

            “famous sockpuppet”

          • 2hotel9

             Famous, in its own tiny little mind.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

     

    R180: “Show us where free speech is limited due to location; please quote the Constitution.

    There are no limitations to free speech, which is why it’s called “free”.  Sorry you are too dumb to understand that.”

    To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication.

    R180: “This refutes your lies, little hanni.  No restriction as to content, so the speech is still free, just the location is managed, if it’s a disruptive mob.  It’s about the behavior, not the speech.”

    • Econwarrior

      Nice try at continuing your distraction, lying little hanni, but the minister was unConstitutionally arrested, as the Constitution contains no regulation specifically about speech in public(in public places).  In trying to change the subject, you tried to distract with free speech zones, which are about behavior, not about speech.  You seem particularly slow today, so I’ll repeat: all restrictions as to location are about behavior, not about speech.  In any case, the minister wasn’t misbehaving; his arrest was for speech, which is against the First Amendment.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        BigGovernmentR180 and McCain voter, you said there were no limitations to free speech, and now you say there are, but you are trying to qualify what is based on behavior and what is not.

        You lose.

        • Econwarrior

          There aren’t any limitations to speech, only behavior.  I’ll repeat this as often as necessary for you to get it.

          • 2hotel9

             No point in wasting all that effort, tranni is a rasict Democrat Party c*nt and will never be a real human being.

          • Econwarrior

            I do believe that even little hanni might eventually learn something.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            How is location behavior, BigGovernmentR180?  You said there are limitations to free speech based on location.  There you go, you answered your own question.

    • Econwarrior

      BTW, little hanni, unless you can prove that the minister was violating a free speech zone there, at that time, all your blather is irrelevant to this discussion.  This egregious First Amendment violation, along with the birth control mandate, happened on obama’s watch.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        There is no “free speech zone law” to violate, R180.  Again, you miss the point and aren’t smart enough to read what was provided to you.

        • Econwarrior

          No, little hanni; in your desperate need to change the subject, you blew it.  You stated that it was OK to violate this minister’s free speech rights because it was in a public place.  You were wrong.  Unless he was an unruly mob or there was a free speech zone in force at that location, there was no excuse for violating his free speech and free exercise of religion rights under the First Amendment.
          All your spinning must be making you very dizzy.

        • 2hotel9

          No, tranni, every link you have posted here proves the exact opposite of what you say it proves, as usual, you stupid c*nt.

        • Econwarrior

          The point is that the ministeer was persecuted for the content of his speech, not the location, so you are just wrong, and no amount of lies will change that.

      • 2hotel9

         Add to that the fact that Bill Clinton place that policy into effect with Secret Service in the 1990s and tranni has made it self as irrelevant as it always does. Then again, all the links it has thrown in comment threads for the last 3 days prove the exact opposite of what tranni claims they do. As usual.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    Egads…they should go to Madison – There is a guy who stands on a soap box on State Street, one block from the capitol, and yells propaganda all day long. This has been going on for years.

  • Guest

    I’m traveling at the moment but it seems the California Highway Patrol…..will be sued over this gross infraction on the first amendment  and deeming the DMV as a “crowded theater” while the fire brand of the tongue is forcefully silenced. Hey,….isn’t “elevator music” piped to a captive audience too?

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CHiPSHahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Guest

      Sure you are.

      This guy was banned from Human Events

      LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Guest

        You’re hiding your true ID like a coward as usual 1Lonesomedove1…..but your hateful death threats have all been reported to the police and Human Events and you are being watched…..you quickly delete your “anonymous” screeds but they are copied and logged regardless…..we know who you are….eh?.

        P.S…..never was “banned” rather a voluntary “freeze out”…and how you squirm over it…. too bad you’re so hooked on hate.

        LOL!!!!!!!!!!!LonesyCan’tTakeBeingLonesy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Guest

          ShugaFag “Kicked out of AnneVille” for launching death threats and being a gay bully of women

          Shuga is receiving hugs and kisses from the gay community and is in great demand in the gay theater even though I’m on Sabbatical. I should be pink with glee, but there are certain people at Annville whom I am determined to keep lying about and cause trouble by once again launching false accusations with my homosexual bullying and violent threats. I will fail as usual, but I’m too fagot stupid to realize it.
          However; I did decide to give up something that wasn’t mine because I stole it.
           

          • Guest

            Anyone with a POS “anonymized guest” avatar is a cowardly wimp…..no guts no gonads….a sandbox intellect and stranded in boneheaded realities….identify yourself….or be forever discredited……

            LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AfraidOfYourOwnShadow!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Guest

            Human Events….the above “guest” Disqus poster is actually 1Lonesomedove1…..the homophobic stalker and hatemonger known all over the internet…..check out his record….this is why Human Events Online needs to investigate.

          • Guest

            The Psychology of Nazism

            Posted on December 14th, 2010

            By Dr Ruwan M Jayatunge

            The Nazi movement which did
            horrifying atrocities to the people was based on racial superiority.
            Adolf Hitler who was the main architect of the Nazi organization was
            supported by many intellectuals. Many leaders of the National Socialist
            German Worker’s Party (Nazi) had many things in common. They all
            believed in destructive Nazi nightmare of racial hearted and ethnic
            cleansing. What was the psychology behind such a fascist movement which
            violated basic human rights? Were they psychologically deviated?

            Psychologist Gustave Gilbert analyzed many Nazi leaders like Herman
            Goering, Albert Speer, von Ribbentrop Rudolf Hob (the commandant of
            Auschwitz concentration camp) etc during the Nuremberg trials and
            revealed the inner nature of the Nazis. He found that Nazis lacked
            empathy. In their personal lives they were good husbands and fathers.
            They loved their children. But when the dark side of their nature came
            in to action they could kill tens of thousands of men, women and
            children in the gas chambers. After committing these crimes their
            conscience were not shattered. They had no guilty feelings.

            Nazi leaders conspired to wage war committed crimes against humanity
            and felt that they are doing it for the betterment of the German people.
            They saw other races especially Jews as sub humans. There are many
            theories beneath Hitler’s antisemitism. Some Germans believed that they
            lost the WW1 as a result of the betrayal by the Jewish businessmen who
            did not support the war efforts. But the truth was there were many
            Jewish officers who fought for Germany during the Great War. Hitler had
            personal experience which led to deep mistrust and hatred against Jews.

            Hitler’s mother was suffering from a breast cancer and she was dying.
            When her Jewish doctor broke the bad news to young Hitler he thought
            that the physician was responsible for her death. Hence hefty anger and
            prejudice was building inside his mind from young days. He was capable
            of generalizing this anger and prejudice against the Jewish people. When
            he came to power Hitler’s leadership caused the Holocaust or the
            genocide of approximately six million European Jews during the WW2.

            Nazis committed atrocities in the occupied territories. In the
            Eastern Europe especially in the USSR they unleashed horrible
            aggression. Women were raped in front of their husbands and children,
            men were killed in masses, and some were driven to forced labor. In all
            these events their lack of empathy and lack of remorse were pronounced
            greatly. According to Gustave Gilbert Nazis leaders had a dual nature.
            Above all they believed that they were doing the right thing.

            Based on the interviews of the Nazi leaders Gustave Gilbert published
            a book called Nuremberg Diary in 1947. These documents disclose the
            psyche of the Nazi leaders. When the Nazi leader Herman Goering was
            interviewed by Gustav Gilbert, Goering said: “Of course the people don’t
            want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a
            war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in
            one piece. . . . But after all it is the leaders of the country that
            determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
            along.”

            People can always be brought to the will of the leaders. That is
            easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
            denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
            to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

            Goering was obsessed by Hitler’s personality. On one occasion Goering
            said my conscious is Führer’s (Hitler’s) conscious. They were ready to
            follow Hitler under any circumstances. Therefore many Nazis leaders
            shared a common mental structure.

            Nazis were able to create a mass hysteria and mass conditioning of
            the German people. Millions of people believed in Nazi propaganda and
            adored Hitler. No doubt that Hitler was a charismatic leader and an
            excellent orator. Gilbert studied the inner nature of Adolf Hitler. In
            1950; Gilbert published The Psychology of Dictatorship. In this book,
            Gilbert made an attempt to portray a profile of the psychological
            behavior of Adolf Hitler.

            Why Hitler preached racial superiority? Has he had any doubts about
            his origin? Hitler’s grandmother Anna Maria Schicklgruber became
            pregnant while working as a servant in a Jewish household. Hitler made
            daring attempts to conceal this factor and had fears that his pure Aryan
            blood was contaminated. When he was about to be the absolute leader of
            the Germany one newspaper published an article stating that the shape of
            Hitler’s nose is more Hungarian than German. Hitler was furious about
            this article and eventually he hunted the journalist who wrote it.
            Hitler admired the music of Wagner. Wagner was an anti-Semite.

            As a boy Hitler was tormented, humiliated and mocked by his father.
            Hitler’s father punished him for a slightest mistake he made. When he
            became an adult leader he ruled the Germany with an iron fist. His aunt
            Johanna was a schizophrenic patient and little Hitler was terrified by
            his aunt’s psychotic behavior. In the later years Hitler ordered to
            terminate every psychiatric person in Germany. He could not stand them.

            In his speech in 1937 April Hitler said,

            All that concerns me is never to take a step that I might later have
            to retrace and never to take a step which could damage us in any way.
            You must understand that I always go as far as I dare and never further.
            It is vital to have a sixth sense which tells you broadly what you can
            and cannot do.

            Hence Hitler was determined to continue his destructive efforts
            despite the protests made by the civilized world. He misinterpreted the
            religion and used it to justify his atrocities against Jewish people. In
            his autobiography Mein Kampf (P46) Hitler mentions the following
            statement.

            I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of
            the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending
            the handiwork of the Lord.

            Henry Murray, a prominent personality specialist at Harvard
            University hypothesized that Hitler was deeply confused about his
            sexuality. Analyzing the metaphors in his book Mein Kampf, Murray says
            that Hitler was unable to come to terms with his complex sexuality.
            Henry Murray claimed that Hitler was both impotent and a “fully fledged
            masochist”. His niece Galee became so tormented by his sexual jealousy
            and committed suicide. Hitler’s sexual inadequacy may have led to
            exorbitant cravings for superiority. Lothar Machtan has argued in his
            book The Hidden Hitler that Hitler was homosexual.

            Although Hitler proclaimed that the Third Reich was invincible and
            would last for thousands of years the system was collapsing in front of
            his eyes. In the verge of the defeat his passion for Germany changed
            dramatically. Adolf Hitler issued his infamous “Nero Decree,” the order
            to destroy all German industry and infrastructure. Hitler’s Minister of
            War Industry Albert Speer sabotaged this auto destructive plan. On 30
            April 1945 when the Red Army was advancing Hitler committed suicide with
            Eva Braun in the Führerbunker.

            Psychology of Nazism demonstrates the savage part of the human
            nature. Leaders can tune the people and make them hate and terminate
            other ethnic groups without remorse. When the people are being
            desensitized they follow the leaders blindly. Influential charismatic
            negative leadership can bring total chaos to the Humankind.

            Following poem reveals the life time suffering of a victim of the
            Auschwitz concentration camp and the magnitude of trauma caused by the
            Nazi ideology.

            Auschwitz (By Dr Ruwan M Jayatunge )
             

          • Guest

            Once again an “ANONYMIZED GUEST” makes a public statement trying to smear and insult the intelligence of the Disqus community of posters…..only a cowardly and fearful homophobic hatemonger uses such tactics.  His real moniker is 1Lonesomedove1….the utmost homophobic hatemongering Gay basher on the Internet….but he is a cowardly bully…..hiding behind an “anonymized” screed ID’s him as not credible….he along with his cohorts should be vilified and shunned. This idiot actually believes that ALL Nazi’s were “Gay” therefore his criminally pathological homophobia is justified.

          • 2hotel9

             And yet you are the one that got banned. Funny, how that works.

            And then a comment about nazis getts posted and it has the usename you screeched about in the email notif but not in the Disqus hosted thread. You really should work on your trolling skills, annvillehater, we have many here who are much better at using suckpuppets than you are, clearly.

          • Guest

            Never “got banned”….and don’t do trolling.  I am a registered Disqus poster just like everyone else.  Because you bet your very own reputation on “anonymized guest” lies and stalking screeds says alot about you personally and only shows your disdain for the truth and your innate knee jerk compliance with pinheaded bigotry.

          • 2hotel9

             Yes, you are banned from HE, and all you do is troll and spew hate. Please, post another comment and prove it. I order you to.

          • Guest

            Don’t retort my posts….you know nothing….and GFY…trolling is your gig.

          • 2hotel9

             Yes, we get it, you are a hate spewing troll who has been banned from more than one blog. Now, go ahead, prove it again. Post another troll comment. I order you to.

          • Guest

            Hey agitator….I order you to refrain from retorting my posts….you think that’s “hate?”…..plus I order you to GFY post haste…..and I also order you not to climax in the process. Those are apprapos suggestions for a bonehead like you.

            LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • 2hotel9

             Poor little troll, you keep using words that you clearly do not know the meaning of, further proving you have lost in this thread. Go ahead. Prove you have lost, again. Post another comment. I order you to.

          • Guest

            My “skills” are far beyond your idiotic and childish game playing……your pinhead doesn’t rate in the “know it all” department.  ;-D

        • Guest

          Hey shugy….we all noticed that when you were banned….several of those Nazi names and avatars disappeared with you.

          Strange, isn’t it?

          • Guest

            What a bunch of homophobic bullies……obsessed and fixated. Notice how they hide behind “anonymous” hate…….
            .

            LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!CannedLaughter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Guest

            Hey scagy!!

            How does it feel to now live in BannedVille? Hope there’s enough food in that cyberDumpster for both you and NaziJoe7Queers.

            No more death threats and slander from you.

            LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Guest

            Shuga never threatened anyone.  You were simply outwitted intellectually and lost it….you’re a dullard and you can’t keep up without your fixated hatreds getting in the way….you are pitiful. Now Annville is in “Freeze Out”….just the way you wanted it….but still you wallow in frustration.

            LOL!!!!!!!!!HidingAsUsual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Guest

            Ya see shugaRat. I have to use “guest” to keep you  from responding. We’ve all had enough of your stench at HE, and I don’t want your liberal Nazi OWS smell stinking up my dashboard either.

            I just thought you’d like to know that….along with you….those three Nazi monikers and avatars are no longer popping up on any of the threads anymore, so everyone now knows they were YOU all along. 
            What a little snake.
            I wonder how long it will take for the people here to learn what a low life vicious homo you are. Maybe in time, you’ll accuse one of them of murdering their late wife and cancer victim like you did me. 
            It would be funny to see you kicked off of another web site.

          • Guest

             It’s SPARKIE!!!

          • Guest

            You’re just another cowardly Chicken Hawk wimp hiding behind an anonymous “guest” facade.  You’ve got zero character…..and zero honor…..slither up to the bar and reveal yourself and quit the shadowy hatemongering that defines your very essense….. you look like a fool….because you are one.

          • Guest

             Yawnnnnnnnnn….

          • Guest

            Hiding behind a phony “hacked Guest” hatemongering facade is typical of flat headed haters like you….you can’t compete so you sneak and slither “anonymously” hiding from everyone….cred shred.

            LOL!!!!!!!!SneakyHatersTheWorst!!!!!!!!!!

          • Guest

             Who’s hiding? I’m right here in your face, jerkoff.
            Yawnnnnn…

          • Guest

            “guest?”….you’re hiding 1Lonesomedove1….you’ve hidden many things concerning your past….liar and imposter.

          • Guest

            Yawnnnnnn…

          • Ken

             “Sneak and slither”

            Sounds like you have experience illegally crossing a border.

          • Guest

            Most of my family has been here since 1620 member of the Mayflower Society too.

          • 2hotel9

             I see that lying is part of its trolling repertoire.

  • Flamejob5

    Listening ,hearing or seeing things that one may claim as being personally offensive may be involuntary in certain circumstances while in public, but since when has roused emotions & hurt feelings become illegal?

    I see, among several things, billboards all the time that are personally offensive. Can i dial 911 and beckon the police to order it removed or covered-up and the perpetrator arrested who financed it? Who is this overlord city/state Angel who gets to decide for all of us what is offensive or not?

    This man was exercising his Natural Right to free speech & religion. If as a people we’ve become such shrieks and sensitive to seeing, hearing or listening to something in public which causes such trifling & insignificant inconvieniences, then we simply do not deserve to be free.  ..and we won’t eventually. 

     

  • VocalYokel

    There is probably a statute in CA against attempting to cast the demons out of the DMV.

Top