Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/03/2026 6:13:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The First Amendment protects both freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but those rights do not give activists carte blanche to invade a church and take over the service.
Or so I thought.
Now, however, a group of activists who did just that has filed a motion to dismiss federal civil rights charges, arguing that its conduct amounted to “pure speech and assembly” protected by the First Amendment. According to the motion, “The Constitution does not contain any exception to free speech in churches.”
Such a statement might make sense if the agitators faced charges related to free speech, but they don’t. They face charges for violating churchgoers’ right to religious freedom—which also appears in the First Amendment.
A federal grand jury indicted 38 people on two charges: violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which also protects access to churches; and violating the Ku Klux Klan Act, which criminalizes efforts to deprive Americans of their fundamental rights—in this case, the right to the free exercise of religion.
According to the indictment, agitators who claimed to be opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement because one of the church’s pastors worked for ICE refused to leave when asked and shouted, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!”
The indictment also mentions that agitators screamed at crying children, blocked parents from getting to their children in Sunday School, and that one agitator told a child his parents were Nazis and going to hell. Churchgoers also reported fearing that they were witnessing an active-shooter event, a fear that is unfortunately not irrational in America today.
In a motion to dismiss the charges, filed Monday, ringleader Nekima Levy Armstrong and 30 other defendants claim that all the activity in the indictment is covered by the First Amendment.
“There was no alleged conduct that crossed the line into violence, threats or anything that went beyond free speech,” the filing states. “The protest was limited to pure speech and assembly.”
The defendants argue that the government is attempting to punish them for exercising their “right to free speech and freedom of assembly” because their “political action happened to take place in a church.”
The filing also claims that “there are no allegations supporting a conclusion that defendants’ actions were intended to interfere with freedom of worship.”
The motion claims the government is punishing the defendants because of their message and because they chose to deliver it in a church.
The motion frames the church invasion as a protest that merely “happened to take place in a church.” That’s like saying the D-Day landings at Normandy “happened to take place on a beach.” The entire point of the agitation was to disrupt the church service—that’s why agitators bragged about shutting it down.
The agitators chose a time when the church was full of people exercising their First Amendment right to worship.
The motion cites Snyder v. Phelps, in which the Supreme Court protected protesters carrying offensive signs near a military funeral. Yet the protesters in Snyder remained on public property about 1,000 feet away from the church. They did not enter the building, interrupt the service, occupy the aisle, or shout at worshippers. The contrast weakens the defendants’ argument more than it strengthens it.
How does interrupting a church in the middle of a service and celebrating how you “shut this down” not qualify as evidence of an intention to interfere?
Imagine activists disrupting a New York Times editorial meeting and shouting, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!” No court would treat that disruption as protected speech.
The attorneys representing Cities Church responded to the filing in comments to the Daily Signal.
“That there was no intent to interfere with religious worship services is absurd,” Renee Carlson, general counsel at True North Legal, told the Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. “The mob of agitators interrupted the pastor’s sermon with whistles and chants, including ‘who shut this down? We shut this down!’”
“Invading a church during a worship service and terrifying the families and children in attendance has never and will never be protected under the First Amendment,” Doug Wardlow, True North Legal’s director of litigation, added.
Perhaps the worst part of this motion involves its approach to the people inside the church.
The filing characterizes the church invasion as merely “speech” and “assembly,” and it dismisses as an “apparent fact” that the worshippers “were emotionally upset,” saying that this emotional disturbance “is precisely the reason that the defendants’ First Amendment rights must be affirmed.”
Tell that to the parents who could not reach their children in a crisis. Tell that to the worshippers who feared they were witnessing an active-shooter attack. Tell that to the child who heard that his parents were Nazis and going to hell.
The First Amendment contains no free speech exception for churches, but it also contains no exception that allows political activists to commandeer someone else‘s worship service, terrify families, frighten children, and congratulate themselves for having “shut this down.”
If this filing is any indication of the defendants’ state of mind, they appear proud of what they did. More troubling still, they seem to believe the Constitution gave them the right to do it.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
First you must specifically define “disrupt”.
You can’t yell ‘Fire’ in a movie theatre.
I believe this would fall in line with yelling fire in a crowded restaurant
I’ll guarantee every one of the protestors is Godless, so this was as much about trying to bring their demonic presence into the church as it was about trying to protest and make a point. God won’t be mocked.
They’re all about separation of church and state until they aren’t.
Does the fact you disrupted a church service provoke your being shot and killed?
They’re all about separation of church and state until they aren’t.
_____________________________
Post of the day, and it’s only 9:22am!!
Perhaps they could test their Free Speech theory by going into a courtroom with their mob and start spewing their garbage.
Well, the Jan 6 protesters are clear now, based on that argument.
I’m reading the next chapter to that story already, actually: You know, the one where the First Amendment allows you to go into a person’s house, abuse them, steal from them, and then plop down on the couch to watch a little TV and then stay for weeks, continually abusing them until they either die or run out of resources.
Freedom of Speech!
No. The first amendment does not allow entrance to private property or the right to disrupt private gatherings. It does not apply to non state actors, at all.
Even if there IS a fire in that movie theater?
“You can’t yell ‘Fire’ in a movie theatre.”
You can’t yell fire in a theater because it endangers people. If you come into a church, and your not threatening, it may be considered free speech. Now comes the left targeting Christian establishments with firearms and guns. So, I would say that any ‘invasion’ of a Christian place of worship by a left wing group, is ‘threatening’. Just like yelling fire in a movie theater, your first amendment right doesn’t let you instigate a potentially lethal environment.
I think your argument is just and reasonable for why the behavior (mass invasion of a place of worship by left wing nuts) isn’t covered by the first amendment. Potentially, since it’s actually a ‘home’ it could be considered ‘home invasion’ and killing those people could be considered ‘self defense’.
I assume there are exceptions... A ‘real’ fire being one of them.
“I’ll guarantee every one of the protestors is Godless”
And I’ll guarantee every one Of the protestors is PAID.
Does The First Amendment Give You the Right To Disrupt A Mosque Service?
A church is private property. No you can’t do that.
It’s my understanding that 1A free speech protection does not apply on private property, such as a church.
For example, I can stand on a public sidewalk and hold a sign saying “ Volkswagen makes bad cars”. Volkswagen might not like it. But the police cannot remove or arrest me.
Suppose I try the same thing on a Volkswagen car lot. Totally different story. Leave after the first warning, or it’s criminal trespass at the least.
Fun fact: Volkswagen was rated the least reliable car brand of 2025 by Carbuzz.com.
They better be very careful here. This would not only invalidate the FACE act but allow people to enter abortion clinics.
Any reasonable judge would toss this as soon as they could.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.