Senate advances bill to protect Oklahoma religious services from protests
OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Senate on Thursday advanced a bill that could imprison protesters who interrupt a religious service.
Critics said the prohibition, which extends to one mile of the religious service, violates free speech rights.
Senate Bill 743 makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 and or one year in prison to willfully disturb a worship service within one mile of a church.
A second offense would be a felony and carry a fine of $1,000 and or two years in prison.
It would apply to those who protest or demonstrate without a license by the proper authority.
Sen. Todd Gollihare, R-Kellyville, said the protest would have to be directed at the worship facility. He is the author of Senate Bill 743.
The nation's Founding Fathers and Pilgrims crossed oceans to get here so they could worship without prosecution and do so in peace and tranquility, Gollihare said.
He said the measure strengthens existing law.
Sen. Mark Mann, D-Oklahoma City, said the bill seeks to stop disruptive, threatening behavior around houses of worship. It does not apply to peaceful protests, he said.
But Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, said he's concerned that it would impact those protesting or sharing the Gospel outside Planned Parenthood clinics located within a mile of a church.
Deevers said he remembered when the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church tried to picket at his church.
'We asked them to move to a public easement and would not suppress their First Amendment rights,' Deevers said.
The Westboro Baptist Church, which has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has held controversial protests across the country, including at the funerals of deceased military personnel.
Deevers said the bill is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, said the bill gives the government a tool to erode or diminish the right to free speech, to assemble and to protest.
'I don't like anyone disrupting a church, a mosque or a synagogue for any reason,' Jett said. 'It is inappropriate. I may not like what people have to say, but they have a right to say what they want.'
The bill passed by a vote of 43-4 and is available for consideration in the House.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Press groups accuse LAPD of violating judge's ban on targeting journalists covering protests
Press groups are accusing Los Angeles and its police department of violating a court order by striking journalists with batons and arresting them as they reported on an Aug. 8 protest. The Aug. 13 complaint, filed by the First Amendment Coalition and attorneys representing the Los Angeles Press Club and the independent media outlet Status Coup, said the department's actions on Aug. 8 showed a 'blatant disregard for the First Amendment' and a restraining order the court issued in July. USA TODAY reached out to the city and the police department for comment and had not yet received a response by publication. The groups are suing the city and the LAPD over the treatment of journalists covering protests surrounding federal immigration enforcement. The restraining order, which was initially set for two weeks but later extended, said the department couldn't use less-lethal munitions against journalists who aren't posing a threat, bar a journalist from entering or remaining in closed areas, assault or obstruct journalists, or arrest journalists in a closed area for violating curfew orders, obstructing law enforcement officers or not dispersing while 'gathering, receiving or processing information.' The contempt motion alleges LAPD officers violated that order during what they described as a 'peaceful' immigration protest on Aug. 8. The officers formed a line and started moving toward the protesters around 9 p.m., the complaint said. 'Then, with no warning and no dispersal order, the officers started shouting 'move back' as they quickly advanced, shoving the assembled group and striking them with batons,' it said. There was subsequently no place for journalists to work 'without being assaulted by the LAPD,' the groups argued in their new court filing. Those who insisted they had a right to be there were 'ignored' or 'told ... to wait,' the complaint said. Sean Beckner-Carmitchel, a freelance journalist who was also injured while covering an immigration protest in June, asked to talk to a department supervisor or spokesperson and was told to move back. Upon repeating his request, 'an LAPD officer shoved him and hit him in the ribs with a baton, causing bruising and pain,' according to the complaint. Beckner-Carmitchel continued to ask, in line with directions in the court's order, to speak to a supervisor. 'The response was blank stares except for one officer who responded: 'That's not important right now,'' the complaint said. After a dispersal order was issued, the department arrested the approximately 20 remaining protesters and journalists. Officers put the group in zip-ties and 'held them against the wall for more than an hour,' the complaint said. Photojournalist Nicholas Stern was also 'struck in the face' and independent journalist Tina Berg was hit with a baton in an incident that 'ripped open the distal phalanx" of her little finger, according to the complaint. Most journalists were released at the scene, but two – Nate Gowdy and Carrie Shreck – were taken to a jail near downtown Los Angeles, the complaint said. Among other requests, the complaint asks the judge to find the defendants to be in contempt of court and modify its previous orders to 'expressly encompass use of batons and any other type of force.' A group of press and civil liberties groups also sued the Department of Homeland Security and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in June over what they described as federal officers' unconstitutional actions against journalists in Los Angeles. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for Aug. 25. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
There's just a month until TikTok could be banned – again. Here's where things stand.
President Donald Trump has one month to finalize the sale of TikTok or the short-form video platform risks going dark in the U.S. – again. For months, Trump has said negotiations for the sale of TikTok have been ongoing with China, as the platform is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance. Since the platform went dark for less than 24 hours in January, Trump has extended the deadline on a ban of TikTok in the U.S. three times. And he may just conduct a fourth. In late July, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a CNBC interview that if China did not approve a U.S.-drafted deal to sell the platform's American assets, the app would go dark again, once the next ban extension expires on Sept. 17. "If that deal gets approved by the Chinese, then that deal will happen. If they don't approve it, then TikTok is going to go dark," Lutnick previously said. "And those decisions are coming very soon, so let's see what the Chinese do. They've got to approve it. The deal is over to them right now." The White House did not immediately respond for comment when contacted by USA TODAY on Aug. 15. When could TikTok go dark (again) in the US? The next deadline for TikTok to be sold by ByteDance is Sept. 17. Why is TikTok at risk of getting banned? Some government officials are concerned that TikTok poses a national security threat, believing that ByteDance, which is based in Beijing, is sharing U.S. user data with China. TikTok has repeatedly denied these claims. In January, the platform went dark for less than 24 hours under federal legislation signed into law by former President Joe Biden in 2024. Trump has signed executive orders three times now that push back the deadline for when TikTok must be sold, promising that deals with China are on the horizon. The latest was in early July, when Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was hopeful Chinese President Xi would agree to a deal to see the platform to the U.S. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@
Business Insider
4 hours ago
- Business Insider
How Russia is building a crypto-powered shadow economy to dodge sanctions
Russia has quietly developed a crypto-fueled network of payments systems that's helped it evade Western sanctions over its war in Ukraine. That assessment comes from blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis, which said it believes Russia had created a "shadow crypto economy" in the years following its invasion of Ukraine in order to sidestep financial punishment by the US and its allies. The report highlighted one crypto token in particular tied to Russian businesses trying to trade under the radar. The coin, called A7A5, has been used to process over $51.1 billion worth of transactions from the time it was issued through the end of July, per Chainalysis data. The crypto, which is backed by the Russian ruble, was transacted on a "fairly small subset" of crypto exchanges, many of which had "notable" ties to Russia, Chainalysis researchers said. Garantex, a crypto exchange with heavy ties to Russia on which the A7A5 was largely traded, was sanctioned by the US in 2022. Grinex, which was created by Garantex employees in 2024 to bypass sanctions, according to the US Treasury Department, was also sanctioned by the US this week. Old Vector, the Kyrgyzstan-based issuer of A7A5, which is backed by Russia's state-owned Promsvyazbank, has also been sanctioned. A7A5 was largely traded during the workweek, with transaction volumes collapsing over the weekend. That suggests the cryptocurrency was used primarily for business exchanges, Chainalysis said. "These trading patterns suggest that A7A5 is primarily being used by businesses operating Monday through Friday, which would align with Russia's legislative goals of facilitating cross-border transfers for Russian businesses via cryptocurrency," the report said. The firm pointed to recent updates to Russia's crypto legislation in the past year. The nation recently legalized crypto mining and cross-border crypto payments, a move that was likely a "deliberate effort to build alternative financial infrastructure" in response to tariffs, Chainalysis said. "The emergence of the A7A5 network sanctioned today further illustrates how Russia is operationalizing these alternative payment rails," the report said. "Backed by sanctioned Russian institutions, A7A5 is providing a new, crypto-native avenue to bypass the ever tightening sanctions against Russia. Time will tell if A7A5 will expand to a larger retail market," it added. Russia has embraced alternative assets, like gold and crypto, as a means to bypass sanctions since invading Ukraine in 2022. In July, Russia's top financial regulator said that the nation's cross-border transactions were on the rise with countries in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia. The nation's share of global trade in crypto and gold have also increased, he added.
