The post began simply, “Meet Jennifer Thurston – the latest activist on the bench.” Those responsible went on from there saying this judge was stopping Border Patrol from arresting “illegal aliens without a warrant.” They continue with self righteous indignation, “You read that right: The people tasked with protecting our borders are now being told to stand down unless they have paperwork—while illegal entry is happening in real time. This isn’t about justice. It’s about tying the hands of law enforcement and opening the gates even wider. Border security should be law. Not optional.”
The post was unsolicited; promoted on Facebook and likely coming to me through my feed thanks to AI and my interest in law enforcement. It spoke of a desire for justice. Yet, I think it reflects the deep darkness impacting our public discourse; infecting us through social media’s memes and posts as well as uninformed podcasts and sites pretending to be news. Fake news and incendiary commentary is sadly a problem among all political persuasions. It just happened to be leaning conservative this time.
I’m not naming the page because I don’t want them to be promoted. I also don’t need anyone hunting me down on line or in real life. Yet as a pastor, former law enforcement officer, and current chaplain, I want to warn anyone who will listen to be careful trusting nondescript Facebook groups, other social media posts, and podcasts claiming a law enforcement connection. Just because someone claims to love and support law enforcement, it doesn’t mean the poster knows what they are talking about. Indeed, watch out for the veracity of posts from such sources and in general. Verify claims. This one just popped up in my Facebook feed, and I immediately found it distressing. I saw major red flags in its tone but also broad brush of accusations.
In this case, they insinuated Judge Jennifer Thurston was an activist judge, thus an enemy to justice. I don’t claim to know all her cases, yet with a quick Google search, one finds her statement at the ruling was actually, “You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers.” Is that so evil? Do we really want our Native, Hispanic and other neighbors to have papers checked because they look foreign in some official’s eyes or because they have an accent? We aren’t supposed to be judged by the color of our skin, accent, etc.
In the 1990s when the Clinton administration floated national identification cards, I clearly remember conservatives were concerned about illegal stops and tracking of citizens especially (the Cato Institute, for one, argued) during times of emergency. They feared abuse of our civil liberties. What’s changed? At some level, law enforcement agents always needed to have a warrant or reasonable suspicion for a stop – much like police are expected to do. If we have an immigration emergency as is claimed, this doesn’t mean all judicial precaution is to be thrown in the trash.
Yes, border security should be and is the law. Laws should be enforced, including immigration enforcement, but we also have laws on the books about when a legal stop can be made to help prevent abuse of our civil liberties. Case law has also historically shaped law enforcement policy. This is all for our protection. Imagine repeatedly being stopped because of your appearance or accent. How might you feel? It would likely anger or annoy most people. Imagine being falsely detained for days (as has happened) because you look Hispanic and was found to be walking without identification. Then, your rights have been abridged. You don’t need a law degree to understand that.
During this time of discord, journalists, judges, and others are having threats made against them and their families. The post invites condemnation which can indirectly call people, especially unhealthy people, to action. They claim the judge is not doing her job, abusing our rights. They point an accusatory finger with words; words not supported by fact.
It was wrong when extremists threatened police families during the last decade’s protests over alleged law enforcement wrongs, and this kind of propaganda which can incite violence is wrong too. Unhealthy people could follow through on the misrepresentations and seriously injure or kill somebody. The page in question, at least through this post, appears to be about inciting people to anger rather than making legal claims. Yet, it ultimately doesn’t rely on “just the facts” as Detective Friday might want on Dragnet. It omits them. In the end, lies of omission can be as harmful as lies of commission, and this kind of post is ultimately sinful.
Martin Luther writes in detail about the Eighth Commandment (as Lutheran’s count them), “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” He addresses the social and spiritual and practical values of this commandment in courts, in the family, and amidst the greater community. “In the third place, what concerns us all, this commandment forbids all sins of the tongue whereby we may injure or approach too closely to our neighbor. For to bear false witness is nothing else than a work of the tongue.” He suggests this sin includes speaking behind a person’s back and slandering. We often love to hear people speak of us like we are gold, “yet we cannot bear that the best is spoken about others.”
Indeed, he goes on, we too often behave like base beasts when we “know a slight offense of another, carry it into every corner, and are delighted and tickled that they can stir up another’s displeasure [baseness], as swine roll themselves in the dirt and root in it with the snout.” We pass sentence, taking God’s place as judge. In doing so, we might not wield a sword like worldly powers, but we use or “poisonous tongue to the shame and hurt of your neighbor.” In a sense, we murder them – killing their honor and the respect due to another.
Martin Luther makes many other great points about how our lies and assumptions hurt others and our unity. It can tear communities apart and lead to injustice rather than justice. This easily applies to our social media posts in a way that would horrify Luther. (I suspect it certainly saddens Christ.) Luther argues we should assume the best of people rather than the worst. Although he doesn’t use this specific word, he suggests that we be empathetic. How would we like to be treated?
Luther concludes, “Thus we have now the sum and general understanding of this commandment, to wit, that no one do any injury with the tongue to his neighbor, whether friend or foe, nor speak evil of him, no matter whether it be true or false, unless it be done by commandment or for his reformation, but that every one employ his tongue and make it serve for the best of every one else, to cover up his neighbor’s sins and infirmities, excuse them, palliate and garnish them with his own reputation. The chief reason for this should be the one which Christ alleges in the Gospel, in which He comprehends all commandments respecting our neighbor, Matt. 7, 12: Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
Today, we have arguments over many laws and court cases. These spill from the courtroom into online discussions. Yet to irresponsibly mischaracterize a legal argument may not just end a person’s career. It could conceivably end a life. The post in question makes no threat, but it doesn’t need to. Someone reading it could act on the anger stirred by its inferences.
Yet, this just isn’t just a problem for others. James writes, “If any think they are religious and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless” (James 1:26). Along with our mouths, we need to bridle our fingers today. If we share such posts, take them at face value, or act on them, we are likely guilty of sin too.
© 2025 The Rev. Louis Florio. All content not held under another’s copyright may not be used without permission of the author. Scripture passages are from the NRSVue translation.
2pennyblog 