I believe so.
Folks, as you know already from my previous post, Paul Zachary Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, has pledged to desecrate the Eucharist in public and has solicited help openly to accomplish it. The question now is, is this criminal solicitation and attempted conspiracy to commit a hate crime across state lines? I'm no lawyer, but I can read the statutes.
Let us begin with a general definition of a hate crime. The one in the Wikipedia will serve: Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Now, hate crime laws in the United States (also known as bias crimes) protect against crimes motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state and federal laws vary, typical protected characteristics are race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality.
The relevant U.S. statute is 18 U.S. Code Part IChapter 13 ss 247, Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs:
(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b) of this section—
(1) intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or
(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).
(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).
(d) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be—
(1) if death results from acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death;
(2) if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more that 40 years, or both;
(3) if bodily injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
(4) in any other case, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
(e) No prosecution of any offense described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States except upon the certification in writing of the Attorney General or his designee that in his judgment a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
(f) As used in this section, the term “religious real property” means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship.
The condition that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce is met because Professor Myers publicly solicited, and made manifest his intent to deface, damage, or destroy any religious real property, which includes religious objects contained within a place of religious worship of which a consecrated host certainly is one.
Professor Myers also has solicited the commission of a crime across state lines by means of the Internet. As such, Federal law again may apply, the relevant statute being 18 U.S. Code Part 1 Chapter 19 ss373, Solicitation to commit a crime of violence:
(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete” if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution.
We need to have in mind that criminal solicitation is simply an attempt to organize a conspiracy to commit a crime which again, falls under Federal jurisdiction because it transcended state lines.
Funny thing, though, that the law allows the perpetrator to defend himself by complete renunciation of his criminal intent. In others, if Professor Myers were to backpedal on his request to violate our civil rights, criminal solicitation might not attach to his crime. So all it would take is an apology of sorts.
Now, who can file a criminal complaint? As I understand it by the reading of the relevant statues,
Any injured party, any one of you who feels that his of her freedom to engage freely in religious worship, intimidated by the possibility that the person next to you in the communion line, responding to Professor Myers' criminal solicitation to intentionally obstruct, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so, by damaging and / or defacing “religious real property” which includes religious objects contained within a place of religious worship, across state lines, may file a complaint.
That's you and me. I believe that Professor Myers' offending blog post meets most of the definitions of federal offenses as detailed in 18 U.S. Code. If you feel threatened, make a copy of Professor Myers' blog post to your local FBI or U.S. Marshall's office and write a complaint stating that you feel threatened by him and that the aforementioned laws gives you the right to protect your freedom to worship in a place free from intimidation. If in doubt on how to proceed, get real legal advice.
Furthermore, under Minnesota law, hate crimes must be reported. If you live in Minnesota, and feel threatened by Professor Myers threat of vandalism, you must make a copy of Professor Myers' blog post and attach it to your complaint to the appropriate Minnesota state authority.
All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities. This is what that other League, the Anti-Defamation League, says on its webpage and I agree with as all men and women of good will should. Also, I hope that the Catholic League takes notice of the probability that Professor Myers may have committed various Federal offenses and proceeds accordingly.
Posts
25 comments:
Just curious,
Do you also plan to "investigate" the death threats against the student that originally started this whole mess or is killing in the name of your god OK?
This might be the sickest thing I have ever seen.
(f) As used in this section, the term “religious real property” means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship.
That makes your entire complaint bunk. He is going to buy a cracker then destroy it in his own home, both of which are his property. You can't do anything about it as his house is not a place of religious worship.
He doesn't have to. He has requested others to steal a sacred object from Church for destruction. That's an overt criminal act to which 2 or more have agreed to. This is a conspiracy and as a member of a conspiracy he can be charged for the entire series of offenses.
Try again.
P.S.
But let's look at it your way.
Say Myers himself goes to church to obtain a consecrated host to desacrate. That's still stealing a religious object with the intent to deface. Let's say he does it at home where no one is watching. The law would be non-the-wiser. But the "bright" professor said he was going to broadcast the desecration on the Internet.
It would still be a hate crime.
Is no different than, say, a single Ku-Klux-Klanner burning a cross on your yard or hanging a noose from a tree in front of your house. The intent is the same: to intimidate, to enrage and to humiliate. That's what makes it a hate crime.
You didn't think atheists had it in them to perpetrate hate crimes, didn't you? But the fact is that atheists have been perpetrating hate crimes against God and man since day one. There goes, for example, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel when young, and a great many yet lesser others who said that religion was "the opium of the people" and that atheism was an "objective good for the masses" and legislated accordingly.
It's a pity.
Thank you for posting this. Such actions by Christians will be most helpful when the homosexuals wish to file hate crimes charges against those who say homosexuality is wrong.
You are doing an excellent service to those who wish to see your religion driven underground.
You are not going to intimidate me into silence, chum. It's just that you forgot that the same laws that protect homosexuals and transgenders and the like are the same laws that protect the free exercise of religion against hatemongers.
As to wanting us to be drive underground, hey, we've been there; we've done that.
A Cowardly Atheist said:
>Do you also plan to "investigate" the death threats against the student that originally started this whole mess or is killing in the name of your god OK?
I reply: Augustine said if a private individual slays an evil doer the slayer of the evil doer shall be counted a murderer since he has dared to usurp that which belongs to God Alone.
Actually it seems the threats are a fraud. Several witnesses said Webster Cook disrupted the Mass by yelling Catholic worshiped an Idol & he pretended to receive the Host then took it out of his mouth when he sat down according to several witnesses.
Plus a young lady signed an affidavit saying she tried to wrestle the Host from him. She hardly looked like she could rough up anyone as Cook charged.
This young man has been caught in many lies. P.Z. Myers just took the press story at face value & ran with his hateful threat. He didn't even try to investigate the facts of the case. Clearly neither did any of His fanboyz.
-BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
If you are a part of some fundamentalist Hindu cult, you are more than welcome to practice your prohibition against beef, but do not send the PC police to kick my door in if I want to deface my Big Mac.
Bringing up charges of petty theft of a half-cent waffer an intent to crumble may be repugnant to some--and in fairness, if you are operating under the assumption that it is the actually body of Christ then that is a perfectly fine position to take--but to others it remains as much of a cracker as a Big Mac remains to any red-blooded American. To demand that others respect food as though it were sacred is a line you do not want to cross.
What you say is inmaterial. Tell it to the law.
-Theo
I am just saying, Theo, if you really want to live in a country where fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Jews can tell you what you can and cannot do with your pork chop, go ahead and persue this cause.
N., my apologies. I misjudged you. You do seek honest dialog.
I must disagree with you. Every religion has its sacralities. Smearing a synaogue with swastikas is a hate crime; so is burning a cross on an African-American family's back yard.
Defiling the Eucharist is a turning point. If it's done in private, it is sacrilege; if it's done in public with the intention of intimidating, humiliating, and enraging a religious group, it is a hate crime.
Myers is engaging in a blatant hate crime. It meets the definition of the law. If he goes through with his hate act I will do my utmost to unleash the law on him with its full force.
If this opens up a national debate on the limits of free speech, so be it.
-Theo
Suppose it is your religious belief that homosexuality is evil. If you choose to exercise your right to advertise that beief in the middle of West Hollywood, which side do you think the law should favor? What of the inverse: the homosexual who thinks religion is evil and posts his propoganda on youtube.
I mean, is no one ever allowed to say or do anything that some group finds offensive?
You ask the question :
"Has Professor Myers engaged in a hate crime?"
Then you say "I believe so"
But it's not a question of belief here, but of interpreting the law.
You have reproduced the relevant US statute.
In this one, the term religious property is defined :
"any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship"
So the key question you need to ask yourself is, would a court interpret this definition as to include a consecrated Eucharist.
Dear N. Adam:
Suppose it is your religious belief that homosexuality is evil. If you choose to exercise your right to advertise that beief in the middle of West Hollywood, which side do you think the law should favor? What of the inverse: the homosexual who thinks religion is evil and posts his propoganda on youtube. I mean, is no one ever allowed to say or do anything that some group finds offensive?
No need to suppose. I find homosexual acts intrinsically evil and I say so openly. Myers is also quite vocal regarding his "objections" not only to Catholic beliefs, but Catholic believers as individuals, another basic difference between us and Myers.
The difference is that I am not going to go to West Hollywood's (hypothetical) First Community Church which may gather a practicing homosexual assembly, steal a sacred object precious to them, and deface it publicly in the Internet in order to to intimidate, humiliate, and enrage a subset of citizens on account of their sexual orientation and related religious beliefs.
You know why? Because being a sinner myself, I am not allowed to hate other sinners on account of their sin. However, I am pretty sure that if I were to do something like that, the nationwide outrage from the Left will move some progressive prosecutor looking to make his or her name, to come after me citing the very same laws I quote because in this country there is a double standard applied to some "minorities" whereas another one is applied to the Church and to Catholic believers.
If Myers desecrates the Eucharist in private, that would be sacrilege, and his judge will be God. If he, however, makes it public, he would be breaking the law. It would be no different from broadcasting any other hate act as defined by law. Simple as that. And enough is enough.
Dear Ignatius:
You ask the question :
"Has Professor Myers engaged in a hate crime?"
Then you say "I believe so"
But it's not a question of belief here, but of interpreting the law.
Very well. Then, I THINK SO.
So the key question you need to ask yourself is, would a court interpret this definition as to include a consecrated Eucharist.
A consecrated host stolen from a church in order to deface it, so as to intimidate, humiliate, and enrage a subset of citizens on account of their religious beliefs, having beforehand engaged in a widescale, nationwide, criminal solicitation to steal said religious object for the aforementioned objective.
Then, I HOPE that courts of law punish the offenders as the law demands.
God bless you both,
-Theo
Unlike present company, I do not find homosexuality evil, but I do think that cannibalism and human sacrifise is morally repugnant and bronze-aged rituals that celebrate these acts, however metaphorically (though since the Donahues of the world refer the actions of Mr. Cook as kidnapping, I have come to question how metaphorical the ritual actually is), are at more than one level deeply offensive to me. That said, I do not need Johnny Law to protect me from happening by such an event televised on cable TV or published on youtube. Neither should you in this instance.
I have tried to illustrate, to no avial, that your crusade, if sucessful, would lead to destruction of the public square in any sense of the word. There are some fundamentalist Christian who believe that we ought not wear polyester, for crying out loud. At least concede that you are aware of the consequences.
Another thing. The single thread you have to an a criminal act is peripheal at best. For one, the value of the waffer is negilible in the eyes of the law. Worst crimes are commited stealing a pencil from the workplace. Secondly, it might be PZ that commits the "hate" but another person will commit the "crime." Thirdly, the crime in question is the act of a priest willingly surrendering the waffer with (hoepfully) no intention of its return.
You are better off lobbying for PZ to be fired. I am certain that the university has more than had its fill of Crackergate.
Unlike present company, I do not find homosexuality evil, but I do think that cannibalism and human sacrifise is morally repugnant and bronze-aged rituals that celebrate these acts, however metaphorically (though since the Donahues of the world refer the actions of Mr. Cook as kidnapping, I have come to question how metaphorical the ritual actually is), are at more than one level deeply offensive to me. That said, I do not need Johnny Law to protect me from happening by such an event televised on cable TV or published on youtube. Neither should you in this instance.
I am sorry you are frustrated.
Your comparison of the Eucharist with "cannibalism and human sacrifise," calling it a "metaphorical reenactment" of a "bronze-aged ritual" is equally repugnant to me, mainly because of its falsity and underlying ignorance. Still, it is an opinion. It only becomes a hate act when someone recurs to an equally symbolic act meant to intimidate, humiliate, and enrage a segment of the public for the simple reason of having a certain religious belief.
I have tried to illustrate, to no avial, that your crusade, if sucessful, would lead to destruction of the public square in any sense of the word. There are some fundamentalist Christian who believe that we ought not wear polyester, for crying out loud. At least concede that you are aware of the consequences.
The public square is already been destroyed and its communications grossly undermined by those like Myers. Inasmuch as they seek to intimidate, humiliate, and enrage Catholics by means of hate-speech and hate crimes.
What I am aware off is that a gross crime is being threatened to effect just those hate-filled aims. What I am trying to do with the means at my disposal is to restore civility to the public square by severely marginalizing those who hide under their freedom of expression to commit hate crimes. Bigots like Professor Myers.
Another thing. The single thread you have to an a criminal act is peripheal at best. For one, the value of the waffer is negilible in the eyes of the law. Worst crimes are commited stealing a pencil from the workplace. Secondly, it might be PZ that commits the "hate" but another person will commit the "crime." Thirdly, the crime in question is the act of a priest willingly surrendering the waffer with (hoepfully) no intention of its return.
I don't believe you read the statute carefully. One by one: The law is blind to the value of the thing stolen. Second, in a conspiracy, all parties involved are equally guilty of all crimes effected by each individual member of the conspiracy; also, soliciting a crime is also a crime; the priests "surrenders" the consecrated wafer with the full expectation that the receiver will use it for its intended purpose, which is to consume it on the premises. If an individual doesn't accomplish its intended purpose and takes the wafer out of the premises, that party is stealing it. Therefore, I find your objections weak and the charges against Myers, in my lay opinion, as actionable.
You are better off lobbying for PZ to be fired. I am certain that the university has more than had its fill of Crackergate.
Having Myers fired will be icing over the cake for me. But that will not satisfy me. If he breaks the law, he needs to face legal consequences. Once again, I finish by repeating what the Anti-Defamation League says (not to be confused with the Catholic League) says about hate crimes:
"All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."
Amen to that.
Thank you for your participation and thought-provoking questions.
In Christ,
-Theo
Therefore, I find your objections weak and the charges against Myers, in my lay opinion, as actionable.
However weak you find my objections, you still have a mountain ahead of you if you think any charges of any kind will come to fruition, let alone go to trail.
Your comparison of the Eucharist with "cannibalism and human sacrifise," calling it a "metaphorical reenactment" of a "bronze-aged ritual" is equally repugnant to me, mainly because of its falsity and underlying ignorance.
You misunderstand, friend. I am not comparing anything to anything. I am saying, plainly, that you are eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood. How that observation is ignorant, I do not know. I mean, in any other context that would be considered cannibalistic if not cannibalism outright. As to the point of human sacrifise, such is quite literally the "crux" (pun intended) of Christianity. I will neither insult your intelligence nor waste my time as to why.
Do own up to the implications of your beliefs.
...the priests "surrenders" the consecrated wafer with the full expectation that the receiver will use it for its intended purpose...
LOL. You sound like my mother! Sweet woman; she gives me these awful t-shirts with the expectation that I wear them.
Your case: PZ Myers defaced a single waffer, with a market value of nothing, obtained through a means unverifiable (though likely benign) and in posting the events on a site which no one is forced to visit, offended the beliefs of a significant portion of the population. Getting that case to trail will require divine intervention.
However weak you find my objections, you still have a mountain ahead of you if you think any charges of any kind will come to fruition, let alone go to trail.
That will be for the authorities to find out once I make the documented complaint.
You misunderstand, friend. I am not comparing anything to anything. I am saying, plainly, that you are eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood. How that observation is ignorant, I do not know. I mean, in any other context that would be considered cannibalistic if not cannibalism outright. As to the point of human sacrifise, such is quite literally the "crux" (pun intended) of Christianity. I will neither insult your intelligence nor waste my time as to why.
Was this an apology?
Do own up to the implications of your beliefs
No, it wasn't.
LOL. You sound like my mother! Sweet woman; she gives me these awful t-shirts with the expectation that I wear them.
I am happy I remind you of someone good in your life. I just hope that you stop mocking her, because a man that mocks his mother, well...I will be quiet now.
Your case: PZ Myers defaced a single waffer, with a market value of nothing, obtained through a means unverifiable (though likely benign) and in posting the events on a site which no one is forced to visit, offended the beliefs of a significant portion of the population. Getting that case to trail will require divine intervention.
You are approving a hate crime. You refuse to engage the law and deal with the arguments. That's your business.
I will tend to mine.
-Theo
You should add to the "Who is Theophilus?" section of your blog, particularly the "What I am not" section. Specifically, you should add: "I am not a lawyer".
I think the Eucharist would not be considered a "religious object" for the purposes of this law, nor would it be "contained within" a church.
The extension of "real property" (i.e., real estate) to objects appears to relate to fixtures and permanent objects, not foodstuffs. I suspect this is how it would be interpreted. Particularly since the normal behavior with the Eucharist "damages" it through mastication, which would make all acceptances of the host into hate crimes. Note also that if you followed the statute precisely, the ownership of the property would not matter -- thus, according to your view, Myers would be equally guilty for desecrating any religious "object", even a bowl of spaghetti.
The statute is not "blind" to the value of the thing stolen. It is silent on the value of the thing stolen. There is a difference.
I don't think your suggestions on this matter are prudent or practical.
I said several times on this post that I wasn't a lawyer, so there is no need to point it out again to my discerning readers. They already know. Is no secret.
The extension of "real property" (i.e., real estate) to objects appears to relate to fixtures and permanent objects, not foodstuffs.
You've got that right. "Appears." That's why I will leave real lawyers and investigators sort it out.
The clause seems to expand the definition of "real property" to include any object within the Church, including foodstuffs. Many Hindus, for example, offer vegetable offerings to their deities in their temples. Are you telling us that if someone like Myers or one of his willing minions were to walk in, grab the fruit and treat it as a common salad in order to show his or her contempt for religion, that this action would not constitute a hate act under the statute?
Your attempt at "reductio ad absurdum" with your spaghetti illustration actually proves the point. What you consider ordinary, cheap, and meaningless others might consider sacred, even a bowl of spaghetti.
What you think is irrelevant, what matters is that you did out of hate, in order to disrupt or impede the freedom of worship by attacking a sacred symbol.
In all these discussions about "real value" or "real property" many forget, or rather, are reluctant to face the motives and end of the crime and the hatefulness of the actions in question; the fundamental violations of the freedom to worship that they entail, and the disruptive consequences to our society and national life that these evil acts portend.
Smaller, targeted kristallnachts against believers, focused not on their real properties but on their most sacred symbols don't make them any better, any more pallatable than their Nazi predecessor. Thugs, whether jackbooted or dressed with professorial togas, must not be allowed to march in our churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, to desecrate sacred objects within them all in the name of their freedom of speech at the expense of our freedom to worship. This is heinous and I am convinced that this is what the law was designed to prevent.
Again, as the Anti-Defamation League states: "All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."
Myers appears to have broken the law. And he should be held accountable.
At worse, my opinion and yours are of equal value; at best, I am right and others much more learned than I can decide the real merits, so that we can bring a potential lawbreaker to account for his heinous acts.
I appreciate your opinion and feedback, but I find them feeble and rehashed. I remain unmoved and unconvinced. I will not remain indifferent to evil as you appear to be.
-Theo
Yes, you did mention that you are not a lawyer; this is why you should be cautious in interpreting the law. You should not make statements as if you are certain you are correct.
Note I mentiond the spaghetti in connection with ownership -- even if you cooked spaghetti yourself, and then ate it, it could be considered a "hate crime" by your interpretation of the statute. I could go on youtube and eat a bowl of my own spaghetti and say, "See what happens to your Flying Spaghetti Monster", and be charged with a hate crime.
Whether food is treated as an object or as food may depend on its permanence. I believe Hindu foods offered to the deities are not eaten, for example. Further, they are actually contained within a church, while the Eucharist is not. Under your literalist reading of the statute engaging in the proper service (i.e., accepting the Eucharist and eating it) would be a hate crime because it's unquestionably damaging it.
You have not entirely represented the range of possibilities. From your perspective, at worst you are completely wrong and will waste a lot of time and energy in a losing cause which gets the law invalidated for unconstitutionality and causes your bankruptcy. At best, you will get Myers fired and establish a principle of law which chills freedom of speech greatly.
I encourage you to press forward with this campaign, which gives you an idea of which way this will go. First, contact a lawyer, preferably quite a good one. Tell him what happened and that you want to file a complaint. If you can, get some students from UMM and/or UCF or some churches local to the area.
"which way this will go" should be "which way I think this will go".
Post a Comment