Such laws are usually not made in the interests of “national security,” as the lawmakers would have us believe, but for the real purpose of stifling all forms of verbal dissent or disagreement. And create basically what the banana “republics” of China, Cuba, and other such governments have; the terror of tyranny, with justice for NONE. I know it would serve President Bush and the current administration very well to put such laws in place, but certainly not the rest of us. To me, it would be like an old novel, THE R DOCUMENT, by Irving Wallace coming frighteningly to life.

Hypothetical: John lives in Apple City, pop. 25. John is the minister of the town’s one church, and is facing an upcoming jury trial. John goes to Apple City’s saturday market where most of the adults are congregated and at his church’s booth, puts up a banner declaring his innocence.

The federal judge (I know, I know) tells him to take it down. John says, okay, but then uses a bullhorn to harangue the market-goers, and hands out angry flyers.

The judge says, stop it!

John then ascends the pulpit at the next Sunday sermon, and weaves a story of denunciation of his critics and declarations of his innocence, into biblical teachings and quotations. Most of the prospective jury pool are of course in his congregation.

Can the Judge say “stop it!” to that as well?

Do John’s first amendment rights in speech and religious exercise, trump judicial administration?