January 6's Implications on Don Lemon's Arrest
The bar has been lowered when it comes to journalists documenting illegal activities due to Jan. 6 and how they treated independent journalists who were there
So, I wanted to be fair and critical of the arrest of Don Lemon. Are we punishing a journalist who was simply documenting what was going on? Was he involved in the protest?
The bar has been lowered when it comes to journalists documenting illegal activities due to Jan. 6 and how they treated independent journalists who were there.
Order “The Children We Left Behind” Now on Wrong Speak Publishing or Amazon!
Let me say, I’m neither a lawyer nor an expert. I could be wrong and am open to fair critique.
When I did a little bit of research, sources say that independent journalists, like ones with InfoWars, who were there on January 6 and entered the Capitol grounds were prosecuted despite initial claims of being journalists.
One of the descriptions I read stated that legal experts claimed these individuals “were captured on video encouraging or joining the riot.”
Watching various Don Lemon reactions to the church being stormed by BLM activists, he was encouraging of it. Multiple times he rationalized the behavior by saying that protesting is supposed to be “uncomfortable.”
At no point did he seem neutral about what was going on. And let’s be honest, neutrality isn’t his forte (like most members of the media).
Also, when it comes to January 6, they penalized those independent journalists by claiming they weren’t “credentialed.”
Visit www.xx-xyathletics.com/ADAM to shop through their top-quality athletic Women’s (XX) and Men’s (XY) clothing, ranging from t-shirts to leggings.
Initially, I thought being credentialed only had to do with who was allowed, as press, on the Capitol grounds. But from reading further, experts make the claim that just because you have a microphone and a camera, it doesn’t automatically grant you First Amendment protections as a journalist in general.
While we know Don Lemon as being a journalist under the CNN umbrella for many years, he is obviously independent now. The question is, does he have the same protections now that he’s not employed by a mainstream outlet?
To me, as a layman and non-legal expert, the situation of January 6 may have given grounds for the federal government to lump independent journalists in alongside people who are doing illegal activities.
Admittedly, I don’t like Don Lemon, but the more I look into this, I’m not sure how excited I am about his arrest.
After this first happened, I thought it could be a legitimate case to arrest him, as he appeared like he was operating and somewhat organizing with them prior to entry. Maybe the people within the church felt the same way, and that should be under consideration.
There have been tactics set up by radical leftists to claim being journalists as fronts for running interference on illegal acts being committed. Was this one of those cases?
Independent journalists are important in our ecosystem, and they sometimes take major risks to break stories that mainstream outlets would never attempt. January 6 may have set a precedent, but is it good that we continue down this road?
Based on my findings, federal prosecutors in January 6 cases claimed that shouting in favor displayed their bias and effectively removed their legitimacy as journalists.
Most journalists cover stories that they’re in favor of, so does excitement over the event make them equally complicit if it trends into illegal activity?
If I’m honest, I’m less certain about how I feel with this situation than a week ago. In a principled manner, I’m looking at the long term for independent journalists, especially since I float between writing independently and for mainstream outlets like The New York Post.
The DOJ may have an ironclad case against Don Lemon that I’m not aware of. I’m always open to that being a possibility. But speaking as a non-legal expert and someone who watches the waves of culture, this wave may turn against us.
“Based on my findings, federal prosecutors in January 6 cases claimed that shouting in favor displayed their bias and effectively removed their legitimacy as journalists.”
This is why we have laws and a court system. The prosecutors presented evidence and the defense presented evidence. Judges and jurors had the opportunity to hear both sides of the issue and their verdict was heard. Those convicted of illegal activity have the right to appeal the verdict.
Anyone that joined the protest/riot could have claimed to be a journalist and some did. The court had an opportunity to decide if the journalists’ claims were honest or simply self-serving in an attempt to take advantage of the constitutional right to free speech and assembly while committing a crime. The court had an opportunity to decide if the journalist’s were dis-associated observers or if they were there for other purposes.
Don Lemon will have the same opportunity. The trial should be available for free viewing everywhere.
And just for the record, it is clearly illegal to enter private property to interfere with a persons or a groups right to free expression and religious services whether that property is a church or a synagogue or a mosque or an abortion clinic. A public trial can do a lot to establish guidelines for further protest, and to establish all of our rights as free citizens.
To me the difference is that Jan. 6 was a protest against the government on government property. This protest that Don Lemon appears to have helped organize was supposedly against ICE but was on private property in a church disrupting a church service that had/has no part in ICE on any level. The fact that Lemon used his "reporting" as a cudgel for an illegal protest waged on private property and infringing on peoples religious rights set him up as someone other than an journalist observer/reporter.