Yes. Can you explain why this was brought under the FACE act as opposed to a hate crime charge or some other law protecting religious freedom? Well, I think The fact that the FACE act has yet to be used for houses of worship, which was one of the intended purposes when the law was passed in 1994. sorry, I think is relevant. I think that Congress intended to protect, through this particular law, protest that crosses over into obstruction and disruption. (06:32–06:41)
CLAIM
Asserts the FACE Act has not been used for houses of worship, despite being an intended purpose.
This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.
