Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Anthony Jackson2 said:The Washington, D.C. Cathedral isn't showing up here for me 🤔

man, you are just straight-up brainwashed by ideology—seriously, chill out. go dunk your head in a can of peaches or something while we’re all stuck in these miserable isolation times

Anthony Jackson2 said:The Washington, D.C. Cathedral isn't showing up here for me 🤔

Maybe try searching for Uncle Marshall's house instead...

Amy Nelson4 said:Washington, D.C., Assumption of Mary Cathedral complex
Asset ID: Z-202
🙂

Anthony Jackson2 is being way too naive here—he doesn't even know the full name of the cathedral!

ironpanther5 said:Look, I'm definitely not a lawyer, so you should probably run this by them—or maybe even a whole team of them. You've got everything from trespassing on private property without permission all the way up the ladder to deal with.

But that’s a pretty bold assertion you've made there. I assume you're basing that on something substantial, aren't you?

brightpilot6 said:But that’s a pretty bold assertion you've made there. I assume you're basing that on something substantial, aren't you?

Criminal Code
Chapter 14. Crimes Against Privacy
Section 141.
Paragraphs 1 and 2,
Section 144.
Paragraphs 1 and 2.

What nonsense. A Church is a public space, especially during Mass. It isn't some exclusive club restricted to a select few; it’s open to everyone. Would you demand special permission just to walk into a shopping mall while its doors are open? That is essentially what this argument about unauthorized entry onto private property or disturbing a home or business boils down to.

Regarding the filming, bans on recording don't apply to spaces that are publicly accessible in this manner. Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, for filming to constitute a criminal offense, there would have to be an actual violation of privacy. I fail to see whose privacy is being compromised by filming someone arriving at a Church—after all, anyone walking by can see it anyway, can they not?

And yes, I am quite certain that everyone attending any Mass that has been recorded in the past has already given their implied consent.🤣

brightpilot6 said:What nonsense. A Church is a public space, especially during Mass. It isn't some exclusive club restricted to a select few; it’s open to everyone. Would you demand special permission just to walk into a shopping mall while its doors are open? That is essentially what this argument about unauthorized entry onto private property or disturbing a home or business boils down to.

Regarding the filming, bans on recording don't apply to spaces that are publicly accessible in this manner. Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, for filming to constitute a criminal offense, there would have to be an actual violation of privacy. I fail to see whose privacy is being compromised by filming someone arriving at a Church—after all, anyone walking by can see it anyway, can they not?

And yes, I am quite certain that everyone attending any Mass that has been recorded in the past has already given their implied consent.🤣

God help us when the Church is the only thing we care about in this country. Isn't it just great how everything else is completely irrelevant as long as we can obsess over the Church? 😲

brightpilot6 said:But that’s a pretty bold assertion you've made there. I assume you're basing that on something substantial, aren't you?

Look, if we’re using actual common sense here, a responsible person can absolutely deny you entry. Just because the whole concept makes some people feel like it's an open door for everyone doesn't mean they aren't mistaken. It really all comes down to the Pope's good will. Seriously, try showing up with a camera and you'll quickly realize this isn't exactly some public park.

brightpilot6 said:What nonsense. A Church is a public space, especially during Mass. It isn't some exclusive club restricted to a select few; it’s open to everyone. Would you demand special permission just to walk into a shopping mall while its doors are open? That is essentially what this argument about unauthorized entry onto private property or disturbing a home or business boils down to.

Regarding the filming, bans on recording don't apply to spaces that are publicly accessible in this manner. Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, for filming to constitute a criminal offense, there would have to be an actual violation of privacy. I fail to see whose privacy is being compromised by filming someone arriving at a Church—after all, anyone walking by can see it anyway, can they not?

And yes, I am quite certain that everyone attending any Mass that has been recorded in the past has already given their implied consent.🤣

Pure nonsense. A church isn't a public town square. And yes, I absolutely can bar you from entering a shopping mall. Go ahead, try walking into a mall with a camera and let me know how that works out for you. Why on earth would anyone give their consent to be filmed when they chose to show up at a location voluntarily? Good grief, I'm shocked and appalled that someone might discover today that priests actually set the rules of conduct inside a church. 🙂

wiredrider9 said:French virologist Luc Montagnier—the guy who actually won the Nobel Prize for isolating HIV back in 2008—is out here claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab.

Interesting stuff...

Did he back up his claims with concrete evidence and present it to the public?

brightpilot6 said:What nonsense. A Church is a public space, especially during Mass. It isn't some exclusive club restricted to a select few; it’s open to everyone. Would you demand special permission just to walk into a shopping mall while its doors are open? That is essentially what this argument about unauthorized entry onto private property or disturbing a home or business boils down to.

Regarding the filming, bans on recording don't apply to spaces that are publicly accessible in this manner. Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, for filming to constitute a criminal offense, there would have to be an actual violation of privacy. I fail to see whose privacy is being compromised by filming someone arriving at a Church—after all, anyone walking by can see it anyway, can they not?

And yes, I am quite certain that everyone attending any Mass that has been recorded in the past has already given their implied consent.🤣

Look, Živana's believers are allowed in. But if a journalist like Živana wants to go in and start filming, she needs permission from the priest. In a shopping mall, they just expect you to follow the house rules. Seriously, once all these restrictions are lifted, go ahead and try filming people at West Gate or the Arena and let me know how that works out for you.

Law on Legal Status of Religious Communities
Inviolability of religious community spaces
Article 12.
Buildings and rooms intended for religious rites are inviolable, except in cases and under conditions prescribed by specific laws.

THE LAW
CONCERNING THE RATIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOLY SEE AND THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS
Article 7.
2. The Republic of America guarantees the inviolability of places of worship: churches, chapels, and church properties.

brightpilot6 said:What nonsense. A Church is a public space, especially during Mass. It isn't some exclusive club restricted to a select few; it’s open to everyone. Would you demand special permission just to walk into a shopping mall while its doors are open? That is essentially what this argument about unauthorized entry onto private property or disturbing a home or business boils down to.

Regarding the filming, bans on recording don't apply to spaces that are publicly accessible in this manner. Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, for filming to constitute a criminal offense, there would have to be an actual violation of privacy. I fail to see whose privacy is being compromised by filming someone arriving at a Church—after all, anyone walking by can see it anyway, can they not?

And yes, I am quite certain that everyone attending any Mass that has been recorded in the past has already given their implied consent.🤣

Since they open their doors during Mass, does the interior of the church become a public space subject to all the same rules as any other public area?

Joseph Clark37 said:Did he back up his claims with concrete evidence and present it to the public?

yeah, I did.

wiredrider9 said:yeah, I did.

Are you? Is it you, Luke? 🤔

Regardless, please share the evidence so we can see it for ourselves... even if, assuming this is true, it hits the front pages everywhere soon...

Joseph Clark37 said:Are you? Is it you, Luke? 🤔

Regardless, please share the evidence so we can see it for ourselves... even if, assuming this is true, it hits the front pages everywhere soon...

All jokes aside, do you seriously believe this stuff? That the truth is gonna be front-page news everywhere? Yeah, right. I’m pretty sure some random Frenchman is more reliable than those local news anchors claiming someone died from COVID when they actually had leukemia. 🙄

Whether someone is a believer or a journalist—that isn't really an argument, is it? At least not from a legal standpoint. Just because a church is considered sacred ground doesn't mean the laws of the United States suddenly stop applying within its walls.

As for the whole issue of tradition, if there were an absolute, universal ban on filming inside religious spaces, I might actually understand the sentiment. But we see journalists walking into churches every single Sunday specifically to do their jobs and provide live broadcasts. The people being filmed aren't asked for permission, nor should they have to give it—much like you wouldn't expect to be asked for consent while being captured on camera at a local farmers market, a restaurant, or a concert. By stepping out into a public space, you are essentially agreeing to waive a portion of the privacy you would otherwise enjoy in the sanctuary of your own home. In the end, we are left with millions of such recordings circulating everywhere.

wiredrider9 said:All jokes aside, do you seriously believe this stuff? That the truth is gonna be front-page news everywhere? Yeah, right. I’m pretty sure some random Frenchman is more reliable than those local news anchors claiming someone died from COVID when they actually had leukemia. 🙄

wiredrider9. You mentioned he presented evidence. Please, just share the link where he laid it out...

I am unfamiliar with this particular Frenchman. It seems unlikely anyone outside his specific field would know him, which is perfectly reasonable. I have no interest in debating the cause of death with you. Beyond this one specialist, there are dozens of experts at his level or higher. But even that isn't the point here. The real question is, what kind of evidence did he actually provide to support his claims?

Joseph Clark37 said:Since they open their doors during Mass, does the interior of the church become a public space subject to all the same rules as any other public area?

I would say yes. It’s much like a movie theater or a concert hall, really. There is a certain line you shouldn't cross regarding the intended purpose of the space, of course, but since the Church itself encourages filming the congregation for broadcasts, why should news crews be treated any differently when they arrive under similar circumstances? After all, isn't the ritual meant to be seen?

Is it actually possible that you guys are back on this again?

ironpanther5 said:Look, if we’re using actual common sense here, a responsible person can absolutely deny you entry. Just because the whole concept makes some people feel like it's an open door for everyone doesn't mean they aren't mistaken. It really all comes down to the Pope's good will. Seriously, try showing up with a camera and you'll quickly realize this isn't exactly some public park.

Did this "authorized official"—whoever that might be—actually prohibit them from entering or filming before it even happened?