CNET's Article Contains 'Inflammatory' Wording
FOR CORRECTION: I'd like to note that the "inflammatory" term appears to belong to CNET and not the letter of the law, which fact calmed my mind immensely. I reread through the FACE Act text several times.
Apparently, the word 'inflammatory' is but an inflammatory media spin on the actual content of the law, which prohibits by force or threat of force attempting to or actually injuring, intimidating or interfering with someone either going to a place of worship or going to an abortion clinic. And to our legislators' credit, "interfere" and "intimidate" are pretty carefully spelled out. It is also very carefully restricted in it's application to these two very specific locations.
What does seem interesting, though, is we are talking about web page content publication here -- not a picket sign, not someone yelling death threats in your face, not someone standing in your way shaking an angry fist -- no activity taking place at either location which the FACE Act addresses (unless someone brought a laptop which could only load that one intimidating URL). Check out subsection (d) and the rules of construction, which begins: "Nothing in this section shall be construed..."
This legislation never intended to address publication matters, digital or otherwise. This legislation is called "Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act." I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how this Act effectively establishes a world-wide digital intimidation-free zone either for those interested on the one hand in having their children baptized -- or on the other hand, aborted.
If so, I guess at least I can now sue anyone who digitally intimidates me on the way to church...finally, the virtual persecution of Christians in America is prohibited by law.
Or are the courts in effect going to make it illegal for me to preach or digitally apply what the Bible says about sin and hell, because both people going to church and people on the way to the abortion clinics could now sue me if I applied that too personally to any individual, and they found that sort of speech somehow intimidating....
