Don Lemon arrested
- Thread starter JohnHughsPartner
- Start date
I kinda want to comment, but then looking at the merit badge that @dpic awarded me i think that would leave me wide open. I really don't want a bunch of hateful comments or to be the butt of peoples jokes this morning.
Edit: Wait! Maybe I should try rephrasing this post a bit.
Last edited:
Is there a bigger POS than Don Lemon. He’s a racist loser. Watch him talk about how those “white people” need to be made uncomfortable, etc. (he is married to a WHITE MAN lol).
And to get issued soap WITHOUT the rope.Lemon probably happy. He's asking to be sent to the big D block.
He should try to go in a mosque to fight for his gay rights and report on that lol.
Ironically I have heard there are real Nazis and racists in prison. Maybe he will let us know hahaha.
Gonna be a lot of MAGA tears and “but but but” itt after the charges get thrown out/doesnt pass a motion to dismiss
It shouldn't be dismissed. That POS and all the rest should end up in jail for that stunt, just like a bunch of prayer circle grandmas would be if they walked into an abortion clinc and disrupted operations while talking about how abortion is murder.
But i don't think anyone should be surprised if it does get dismissed.
Edit: If it does get dismissed, it'll be a boon for lemmon. He will probably double the number of people who listen to him to a solid dozen.
You seem upset about the arrest. Go figure
But I could care less if and when he gets released. Hell, he could’ve wanted this for the exposure
Have they said what the charges are? I read last week that a judge refused to sign off on the charges against him.
How do I seem upset? I couldn’t care less. Just pointing out the inevitable tears from Growls/you once the charges are dropped.
he’s probably going to end up suing and get a big bag because that’s how this country operates
I have been wondering why the protesters weren't charged with trespassing. You can't just barge onto private property to protest.
Last edited:
I don’t think this is a free speech issue. If he had stayed out on the sidewalk he would not have been arrested
He went in after the protest to interview the pastor. The attorney generals in Minnesota and California refused to sign off on his arrest because interviewing after the fact didn't meet the definition of "depriving others of civil rights." That's when our corrupt, boot-licking Attorney General stepped in and signed off on the arrest personally. Because she cares deeply about our country of course.
I'm pretty sure if Project Veritas went in afterwards, no one would have had a problem with it but if you're a gay black journalist who doesn't like Trump, that's cause for the full weight of the federal government to come down on you. Priorities!
Wait, do you mean a journalist was planning to do journalism? Say it aint so!
Him being gay or black has nothing to do with it and you know it.
I don't feel as sure about that as you do. Just read the comments in this thread to see how people on the Right feel about it.
“Journalism?” That’s what you took from that? Of course it is
1. assuming that the charge relates to some sort of criminal civil (religious) rights violation, it’ll be one of those interesting battles where one right (religious exercise) bumps up against another (free press), tater than the usual right v power fight.
2. While I don’t pretend to have focused on any of the details here, I would imagine that if Don were involved in planning rather than merely showing up to report, that may be somewhat beyond the borders of protected journalism. Maybe not beyond free speech, but see number 1. In which case he should not cloak it as journalism
2. While I don’t pretend to have focused on any of the details here, I would imagine that if Don were involved in planning rather than merely showing up to report, that may be somewhat beyond the borders of protected journalism. Maybe not beyond free speech, but see number 1. In which case he should not cloak it as journalism
Cut and past from AI. I'd assume this would what they would use to go after him.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994 is a U.S. federal law (18 U.S.C. § 248) that prohibits the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone obtaining or providing reproductive health services, or exercising their right to religious freedom at a place of worship. It was enacted to protect abortion clinics and staff from violent blockades, with penalties including fines and imprisonment.
Key Aspects of the FACE Act
- Purpose: The law aims to ensure access to reproductive health care facilities and places of worship, authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to seek injunctive relief, fines, and civil damages.
- Prohibited Conduct:
It is a federal crime to use physical obstruction, force, or threats to prevent, intimidate, or interfere with individuals accessing or providing abortion services or other reproductive health care
. - Protected Locations: The Act covers reproductive health clinics, hospitals, and places of worship.
- Penalties:
- First Offense: Non-violent physical obstruction can result in up to 6 months in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.
- Subsequent Offenses: Up to 18 months in prison and/or a $25,000 fine.
- Violent Injuries: If bodily injury occurs, penalties can increase to 10 years in prison, with higher penalties for causing death.
- Legal Protections: The Act specifically does not apply to peaceful, non-obstructive demonstrations or speech protected by the First Amendment.
- Recent Developments: While the Department of Justice has used the Act to prosecute, some lawmakers have introduced legislation to repeal it, citing concerns over its application.
Violations often involve, but are not limited to, blocking clinic entrances, using violence, issuing threats, or committing arson against, or damaging, clinics that provide reproductive health services.
Agreed. I will say, imo, the type of protest engaged in here is fundamentally wrong. Regardless of what Lenin’s role was
Sure it was and I don't think anyone would have a problem with arresting the protestors but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to cover the event. Not in this country anyway.
Maybe I am not up on the facts, but from the video it looked like he was inside during the protest. I don't have any problem with him being around the report and if the church invited him in to do an interview, obviously that is different.
Agreed on that point. But as noted, it's a little less clear to me whether Don was there "merely" as covering, or whether he may have had more organizational responsibility. I don't think "journalism" extends to creating the events you'll cover. But as I said, I don't know the facts on that front. Similarly, I don't know if Don was arrested while "covering" the Grammys or whatever award ceremony, or whether he was arrested while "attending" them.
It raises an interesting bigger picture issue -- the fact that a cell phone has a camera on it does not make everyone a 'citizen journalist' with 24/7 1A protection every time they whip it out to film something, especially if they are involved in creating what they are filming. I'm not sure people actually appreciate that.
I stand corrected, it looks like he followed them in after he saw them enter the church but IMO, reporting on it shouldn't be held to the same standard as the protest itself. He literally did prosecutors a favor by filming inside and providing first-hand evidence by documenting it. This didn't need to be prosecuted but this administration will never let an opportunity to terrorize their opponents go unpunished.
Where does "reporting" end and being an active member of an insurgency's communication/propaganda wing begin? Its going to be interesting.
Don knew what was going to go down by all accounts. I believe he did interviews with the leaders beforehand. . Don passed out coffee and doughnuts before they went into the church to interrupt the service, and terrorize the worshipers and shout down the pastor. Don was right up there with the protestors, with people screaming int he pastors face and don standing shoulder to shoulder with them aggessively questioning the pastor. Not after the event, not after the service but right in the middle of everything.
yep. it's one thing to be 'embedded' as a 'journalist', may be another to be a participant. TBC, i've not spent any time watching videos, so I don't know if he was participating or just there. also TBC, I don't know that during/after timing is controlling, though before/during may be more relevant.
Says who?
If they publish (or intend to publish) the information, via the internet (or other means), what prohibits someone from considering themselves "a citizen journalist" - i.e. "the press"?