DOJ Arrests Journalists Don Lemon & Georgia Fort For Acts Of Journalism, Even After Courts Rejected Arrest Warrants

from the what-constitution? dept

Last week, a federal magistrate judge told the DOJ it could not arrest journalist Don Lemon. The DOJ appealed and lost that appeal too. The legal system said no.

So the DOJ arrested him anyway.

On January 18th, protesters interrupted services at a Minnesota church after discovering its pastor leads a nearby ICE field office. Journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort followed the protesters through the church’s publicly accessible doors to cover the story. They streamed the protest. They asked questions. They committed acts of journalism.

And by this morning they were both in federal custody (though since released).

Organizers of the protest, to the extent they had any real organizational control, were arrested. Pictures of at least one of those arrests were run through one AI platform or another to make those arrested appear to be in more distress than they actually had been.

When that didn’t quench the thirst for cruelty and fascism of this particular regime, Pam Bondi’s DOJ then attempted to go after the journalists themselves. For what crime? Anyone’s guess, honestly. The DOJ attempted to get arrest warrants for Fort and Lemon from the courts, which told them to fuck all the way off. The DOJ then attempted to appeal the rejection without informing the lower court, and attempted to get the Appeals Court to hide the request under seal. That wasn’t successful either.

But rather than admitting that violating the First Amendment rights of journalists was a total stinker of an endeavor, the DOJ convened a grand jury, apparently got an indictment, and then both Lemon and Fort were arrested at Bondi’s direction.

Local Minnesota reporter Georgia Fort, along with former CNN journalist Don Lemon, were arrested by federal agents following their coverage of a protest at a church in St. Paul. Don Lemon’s attorney said he was “taken by federal agents” on the evening of Thursday, Jan. 29, while he was in Los Angeles covering the Grammy Awards. Local independent journalist Georgia Fort was also arrested at her home by federal agents.

A statement from the Center of Broadcast Journalism called the arrest “An assault on press and on the 1st Amendment.”

“Georgia Fort, a trusted and cherished journalist in Minnesota, was arrested in the early morning hours for doing her job by covering a pop-up protest at Cities Church in St. Paul,” the statement read. “It is an outrage that a vetted and credentialed member of the media would be in any way prosecuted for doing her appointed duty in covering news. If the federal government can come for Georgia no member of the supposed ‘free’ press is safe.” 

This is incredibly dumb for a variety of reasons. For starters, the Minnesota courts, where any trial will take place, are not going to take kindly to the idea that it told the DOJ its requests for arrest warrants were hot garbage only to have that same DOJ end run around the courts to make those same arrests via a grand jury. It’s a slap in the face to the very court system within which the DOJ will have to operate. Elie Mystal is spot on about this at The Nation.

The arrests of the two journalists are clearly unconstitutional. You don’t need to be a legal scholar to know that arresting journalists for covering the news is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Lemon’s arrest is also flatly illegal. Last week, the Trump administration went to a federal magistrate judge, Douglas L. Micko, to ask for an arrest warrant for Lemon. The judge refused. The Trump administration then appealed and lost that appeal. The legal system literally said the government couldn’t arrest Lemon, but the government arrested him anyway, and they went all the way to Los Angeles (far from Minnesota) to get him.

Georgia Fort is a prominent Black journalist based in Minnesota. She was out front in covering the George Floyd protests, and expertly covered the trial of his killer, Derek Chauvin. I have little doubt that this prior reporting is among the reasons she was targeted by the Trump administration.

Add to that the very open question, based on the law that the DOJ is citing here, whether any of this actually violates a statute, by anyone involved in this at all. I would very much argue that it does not, by plain reading of the law. As Quinta Jurecic at the Atlantic notes, the legal argument is garbage.

The indictment itself makes for a strange read. No attorneys other than political appointees appear on the filing—a hint that career Justice Department employees might not have wanted to be involved. The government treats Lemon and Fort as co-conspirators of the protesters without acknowledging any protections afforded by their role as journalists. Both charges derive from the FACE Act, a 1994 law meant to prevent anti-abortion protestors from restricting access to reproductive-health clinics. Here, though, the Justice Department is leveraging a lesser-known portion of the statute that provides similar protections for freedom of religion in places of worship. Kyle Boynton, who recently departed from his position as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division, told me that this provision of the FACE Act has never been used—probably because “it’s plainly unconstitutional” as an overreach of Congress’s authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Boynton, who prosecuted FACE Act cases and crimes committed against houses of worship while at the Justice Department, was unimpressed with the legal reasoning in the indictment. “I think it’s very likely to face dismissal,” he said. Not only might courts find the statute unconstitutional, but Lemon and Fort could also contest the charges on First Amendment grounds, and the indictment doesn’t clearly show a FACE violation to begin with.

But it’s even dumber than that. As Dan Froomkin points out, part of the indictment tries to argue that the “overt acts” needed to prove a “conspiracy” is… that these journalists… interviewed the pastor. Or, as the DOJ says, “peppered him with questions.”

My goodness. How dare he commit acts of journalism?

Separately, you can watch the Don Lemon stream footage. He makes it very clear that he is there in his capacity as a journalist. He is not actually interrupting services. He is there covering the story. The same is true of Fort.

Both arrested journalists are Black. The head of the DOJ’s “civil rights division,” Harmeet Dhillon, celebrated by retweeting Republican operative Mike Davis calling Lemon “a klansman.”

Davis, for those unfamiliar, went on a right-wing fabulist’s podcast before the 2024 election and promised that if Trump won, opponents would be “hunted.” He promised “retribution.” He said: “We’re gonna put kids in cages. It’s gonna be glorious…. We’re gonna detain a lot of people in the D.C. gulag and Gitmo.”

That guy is now calling a Black journalist a “klansman” for doing journalism, while the head of Civil Rights retweets it approvingly.

It’s not just Davis and Dhillon joyfully cheering on this blatant attack on the First Amendment. The White House itself posted a black and white photo of Don Lemon cheering on his arrest, calling it (ridiculously) the “St. Paul Church Riots” (there were no riots) and tweeting “When life gives you lemons…” along with chain emojis.

That will likely go right into Lemon’s filing for vindictive prosecution.

Courts have already ordered both Lemon and Fort released, though they’ll be back in court. In Lemon’s case, the judge refused to issue the requested $100k bond the government asked for. The court also will allow him to travel internationally on a pre-planned trip, even though the government demanded he hand over his passport. All of this seems clearly designed for blatant intimidation over media coverage.

The DOJ is now treating journalism as conspiracy, questions as overt acts, and coverage as crime. Courts told them no and they did it anyway—gleefully celebrating the end of the rule of law, openly gloating about punishing the President’s critics for their speech.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DOJ Arrests Journalists Don Lemon & Georgia Fort For Acts Of Journalism, Even After Courts Rejected Arrest Warrants”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
95 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Ahem...

Courts told them no and they did it anyway

There’s a … bit more to it than that, though that makes a tidy lede.

The Magistrate Judge said no, there’s no ‘there’ there.

As noted on Wednesday, the appeals court asked the Minnesota Chief Judge, “what is this slop the DOJ is giving us?” The Chief Judge said, “that’s exactly what it is. Slop.”

The Appeals Court’s judgement, though, was more reserved than a simple “no”. It was “we don’t have authority to force a Magistrate Judge to grant a warrant. And even if we did, you haven’t shown that that’s the only way to get a warrant.”

… which the DoJ took as permission to convene a grand jury, (probably) lie to them, and take an indictment from them to a judge to get the warrant they served.

No idea where the grand jury came from on such short notice, but I guess they weren’t as skeptical about the ham sandwich as they should have been. (Was it the mayo? Couldn’t have been, that’s in Rochester!)

jimz (profile) says:

Re:

One wonders if they don’t have anyone in the office who remembered that prosecutors routinely use inadmissible or outright unsubstantiated information to get to probable cause anyway, but it’s hard to see how they’d get where they got without, well, doing just that but in a different venue/context. Or maybe they’re afraid of having to answer questions from judges since apparently being talked to is the equivalent of violence now but actual violence is no big deal.

frankcox (profile) says:

Context and situation matters

I’m of two minds about this, and I really hate to say anything that seems even slightly to support the Trump fascist regime. Believe me, I have nothing but contempt for that bunch.

But I’m thinking that context and the details of a specific situation matters.

Taking a theoretical example, lets say a gang breaks into my house and one of them stands over me and starts barking questions at me while the others ransack the place. When the police arrive to take the gang into custody, does the question barker get to say, “I’m a journalist” and walk away? How do you distinguish between him and the rest of the gang who walked in the door with him? Just because he’s the guy with the camera?

It comes down to a question of how to define a “journalist”, and that seems to be a very indistinct and slippery concept in today’s world where everybody’s got a camera, a microphone and a youtube account.

zeiche (profile) says:

Re:

It comes down to a question of how to define a “journalist”, and that seems to be a very indistinct and slippery concept in today’s world where everybody’s got a camera, a microphone and a youtube account.

i have to ask, are you being serious? DON LEMON? the television journalist and former host on CNN from 2014 to 2023?

are we really going down that road?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You keep saying that, but it doesn’t help anyone who’s not “DON LEMON of CNN”—such as Don Lemon formerly of CNN, or Georgia Fort, the people this story is about.

We’re talking about Trump lawyers here (assuming they’re lawyers at all). This week they’ll be saying Lemon’s not a real journalist; next week, with no sense of irony, they’ll be saying “well, this latest person we arrested is no Don Lemon”.

I hope the courts will be willing to apply more inclusive standards, and that ordinary people will be willing to accept the risk of doing journalism while not Don Lemon.

Rocky (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You’re not addressing the theoretical example I posted above.

You want a theoretical example?

Imagine someone posting on the internet and they are getting paid to raise “theoretical examples” as a way to cast shade on actual people and question their legitimacy. Should we allow them doing that or should we just declare them to be paid shills that should be ridiculed, belittled and shunned?

Are you a paid shill?

frankcox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

No, I am not a paid shill and if you check my posting history here you can easily see that I’m not.

Are you an ignorant asshole who insults people when you have no legitimate argument to make?

I guess I have a problem with people forcibly entering a place where they’re not welcome and disrupting and terrorizing the people who are there. Excusing that kind of behaviour on the basis of “yes they are a bunch of thugs but they’re our thugs” employs the same rationalization that these MAGAs use to justify the actions of their goon squads.

Is that really a road you want your country to go down?

It’s a damn shame what’s happening to you guys. Truly.

Who Cares (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

You really missed the point.
Worse you just made the argument that there are no journalists when you made that denial of being a shill.

If I have a phone and record what law enforcement (or people pretending to be law enforcement while actually trying to be brown shirts using intimidation tactics in service of their fascist overlord(s) ) then you have to consider me a journalist.
Why? Doing anything else turns the people that do not want to be recorded by journalists, whether professional or amateur, into gatekeepers determining who is allowed to record them.
Further in the USA the right of journalists to observe/record is based on the broader 1st amendment right of freedom of speech, just specifically enunciated. All the attempts at creating restrictions on who, or how someone, is allowed to record law enforcement have been struck down by courts for that reason.

Rocky (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

You questioned if Don Lemon was a journalist by posing it as a theoretical question. I questioned if you where a shill by asking another theoretical question based on your own question’s reasoning.

How you ask questions and in what context matter hugely, because in this instance you came across as someone who “is just asking questions” while implying that Don Lemon isn’t a journalist.

If you instead had asked where do we draw the line between a journalist and for example an activist posing as a journalist it would have been more on point without the underlaying innuendo about Don Lemon’s status as a journalist.

frankcox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/journalist-lawsuit-wrongful-arrest-trial-9.7038779

Trial begins for journalist suing RCMP for arrest at pipeline protest camp near Prince George, B.C.

Read this article. It’s really on point here.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/journalist-lawsuit-wrongful-arrest-trial-9.7038779

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Asst DA BA Baracus says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Haven’t other cases addressed this, including in the social media era?

I’m not certain, but I seem to recall this has been addressed in a number of “freedom of the press” cases. Not an easy distinction in the modern era, but one that has been considered—things like if you have bona fide examples of you doing journalism—a venue (even if it’s your own website), regular or semi regular pieces, evidence of putting consistent efforts into whatever your journalism looks like, etc. Lemon is unambiguously a journalist, and he was arrested much after the fact.

The crime others were arrested for wasn’t entry into the church, and the ones arrested previously were identified as leaders/planners. No one with two brain cells to rub together is alleging Lemon or Fort were organizers. I could be wrong, but I think the MN Judge denying the warrant pointed out that they weren’t proposing arresting everyone who was there; they focused on the alleged planners… and the journalists.

In your example, the breaking and entering is already a crime in a specially private residence, as opposed to a semi-public space—which seems to me a major difference. And perhaps the journalist could be charged with trespassing—but that’s not what they’re charging here. And again, they aren’t charging everyone who went in—strengthening the obvious conclusion that they are looking to particularly punish the journalists. I assume in your breaking and entering example, you would want to press charges on everyone. It would be weird if you picked out the leaders… and the established journalists. And if it Is just a jabroni with a phone, all the considerations around being a bona fide journalist would apply, and have been litigated in literature I’m sure you could find if you tried.

Your example feels frivolous because of numerous different facts, and questions our legal system has actively grappled with for decades. No need to offer a constrained thought experiment when real examples and rulings are around to help you consider your question. Why ask TechDirters to derive answers amongst ourselves? Seems inefficient and low key trolly.

Assistant D.A. B.A Baracus says:

Re: Re: Re:5 You didn't (properly?) read my question

You ignored most of the points I made, and seemingly deliberately misinterpreted the one you mentioned.

“No need to offer a constrained thought experiment when real examples and rulings are around to help you consider your question. Why ask TechDirters to derive answers amongst ourselves?

I’m not asking “why discuss it here on TD”. I’m asking “why construct hypotheticals and thought experiments, if you’re truly concerned with rational discussion, rather than taking 2-3 minutes to look up some examples where freedom of the press has been tested in court. As Judge Schiltz pointed out in his letter to the Court of Appeals, those who had already been arrested were putative leaders of the protest. Adding journalists seems like pure vindictiveness and an attempt to chill the press.

But looking at the whole of your comments, it seems like you are either just trolling, or that you now feel compelled to stand by your bad take no matter what as a matter of principle. In either case, to quote one of lesser statesmen of all time: “SAD”.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

people forcibly entering

I watched video of the protest. I didn’t see any forcible entrance. Did they break a lock or a door? Crawl in through a window? You seem to just be parroting the official narrative from Bondi and company. Why would you assume their narrative is factual and backed by evidence?

a place where they’re not welcome

It was a church service open to the public. They wouldn’t be told they weren’t welcome until they entered and started protesting and then at that point, they would typically only get a warning and be told not to return.

Also, that trespassing charge would be a local or state crime, so the feds wouldn’t charge and prosecute that, so it’s irrelevant.

and disrupting and

Is disrupting something illegal? Do you have a legal citation?

terrorizing the people who are there.

This is another biased word choice. Did they make people fear for their bodily safety? Would a rational third party see a crowd of protesters telling you that your pastor is an authoritarian hypocrite and assume that their life is in danger?

You’re making assumptions and assertions here no supported by available evidence. When a court already told Bondi that there wasn’t anything to charge, why do you take her perspective over the court’s? You made a show of not wanting to look biased in favor of the administration, but your words indicate you’ve accepted their biased perspective as factual.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Again, you’re just parroting the administration here.

the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship,

Where is the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction?

Did you watch the videos? What is your factual basis for claiming that a violation of this law occurred. Is it your own assessment from your own examination of the available evidence or have you literally only listened to the administration press releases and conferences?

But more importantly, note that you completely ignored my criticism of your claims of forcible entrance and terrorizing. Feel free to address those as well.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Does Don Lemon have a magical super-power that Mr. Schmoe doesn’t in this kind of a situation?

Broadly speaking, no. A journalist is simply a person wielding a mixture of freedom of speech (which everyone has), freedom of assembly (which everyone has), and freedom of the press (which everyone who has the means to publish has). Yes, there are a few laws on the books about technical details of the trade like protecting sources, but fundamentally journalists don’t have extra rights. They’re just taking full advantage of their rights.

So, to make a sound argument that Don Lemon shouldn’t have been arrested, you must argue that the protestors shouldn’t have been arrested either, or you must argue that his behavior differed from the behavior of the protestors in some key way (e.g. they shouted slogans and he didn’t). You can’t simply say “haha, journalism go brrrr”. And to be clear, this post doesn’t: its argument is that he was acting like a journalist, meaning his behavior differed from that of the protestors. (Though I imagine the author’s sympathies are with the protestors as well.)

Commenter #5759 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Does Don Lemon have a magical super-power that Mr. Schmoe doesn’t in this kind of a situation?

Broadly speaking, no. A journalist is simply a person wielding a mixture of freedom of speech (which everyone has), freedom of association (which everyone has), and freedom of the press (which everyone who has the means to publish has). Yes, there are a few laws on the books about technical details of the trade like protecting sources, but fundamentally journalists don’t have extra rights. They’re just taking full advantage of their rights.

So, to make a sound argument that Don Lemon shouldn’t have been arrested, you must argue that the other people shouldn’t have been arrested either, or you must argue that his behavior differed from the behavior of the other people in some key way (e.g. they shouted slogans and he didn’t). You can’t simply say “haha, journalist go brrrr”. And to be clear, this post doesn’t: its claim is that he was acting like a journalist, meaning his behavior differed from that of the protestors. (Though I imagine the author opposes the arrest of the protestors as well, on top of that.)

Ngita (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The line is more likely to be drawn over private property ie your home example.
Private property which has a public accomodation ie churches.
or public property which is where 99% of time is where you will see people running around with cameras.

You do not want the government defining who is press or registering them, or are you suggesting Roskomnadzor is a good thing?

n00bdragon (profile) says:

Re:

“Context and situation matters”
Proceeds to make a false comparison with a totally different situation under a totally different context

There is a special badge that lets you barge into people’s houses (with a warrant). There is no special badge that lets you be a journalist. Everyone can do that. Journalism doesn’t allow you to break other laws, but that’s not what’s happening here. That is transparently not what is happening here. Everyone with at least one eyeball can see the government is punishing two journalists for covering something they don’t like.

Commenter #5759 (profile) says:

Re:

“I’m a journalist” isn’t a get-out-of-crime-free card. In your example, the person acting as a journalist has clearly committed the crime of breaking and entering, even if he didn’t personally break open the door. He can be prosecuted on that basis.

But as you said, context matters. Don Lemon wasn’t accompanying a bunch of robbers breaking into a private house; he was accompanying a bunch of people walking into a church—which is a publicly-accessible space, like a store or restaurant—to shout some words that the pastor and congregation didn’t want to hear. That may be rude, but I’m not convinced it’s a criminal offense—and if it is, is shouldn’t be. (I say this as a church-goer myself.)

Now, if these people didn’t leave the property in a timely manner after being asked, they can fairly be charged with trespassing. And that includes Don Lemon. But they have to be asked first. It isn’t a criminal conspiracy to plan to walk in somewhere and shout things, even if you’re 99% sure that you’ll be shown the door immediately.

Commenter #5759 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

While I certainly wouldn’t enjoy that, neither I nor, by my best understanding, the law would consider that an arrestable offense unless it became a repeated pattern. Though if it happened on publicly-accessible private property, the property owner or an employee would probably ask the yelling person to leave, which could bring in the trespassing charges I mentioned above.

Furthermore, when loud, forceful speech is used to criticize a public figure for his role in carrying out official government policy, the bar for proving or even prosecuting harassment should be even higher than it would be under other circumstances.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

So anyone can just walk up to you in when you are minding your own business in any public place (sidewalk or building) and start screaming in your face, and this is just fine and dandy with you?

But you’re talking about Lemon’s conduct here. Beyond yelling not typically being a criminal offense, do you have evidence that Lemon yelled at all? You’re changing the scenario and pretending he’s guilty by association.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

Your theoretical is irrelevant, because it’s not the same situation.

Lemon and Fort didn’t break into anyone’s house(well, except god’s). They followed a group of protesters into a public space, and started asking questions. Anyone could do that.

So yes, even if this has been “Joe Schmoe with a smartphone”, it wouldn’t be grounds for an arrest.
And this clearly wasn’t either, since the arrest warrants were denied. Twice.

B-Rex (profile) says:

Re:

Honest reply with no whataboutery:

What the protestors did was prima facie legal to begin with. They entered a place, at the time open to the public, and protested.

Had and when they were asked to leave, they would then at that point become trespassers.

So the first part of your question is that you are comparing lemons and limes (sorry) as your house is de facto a private residence not open to the public.

The question of who is the journalist is one of intent – mens rea – was Lemon’s purpose to protest or to report on a protest? As a seasoned journalist, it was quite obvious that he was making it clear that was his intent. It was also a newsworthy event so arguments that he doth use the 1st amendment as a shield peel away.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It may even end in yet another case of malicious prosecution, which they have a small handful of known cases about. Alternatively a bar complaints which is where a disturbing percentage of the lawyers for the administration ends up.

There is a reason Pam Bondi is making public appeals to find new lawyers: While Trump can protect them from prosecution, he cannot singlehandedly protect them from losing their bar license and/or he doesn’t have enough judge-appointments to slot them into!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

That you can’t tell the difference between entering a church at a time it is open to the public and robbing a bank says a lot about you.

None of it good.

Can Nick Shirley make same claims if necessary or do you have to be fired from a news org. a few years ago first?

I didn’t see any indictment against Nick Shirley for his actions. Did you?

someoneinnorthms (profile) says:

So, who would be okay if I knew your house would be burglarized, and I went into the house with my cell phone to record that burglary?

I’m a criminal defense attorney, so maybe I don’t know how time prosecute a criminal case, but it seems to me that if a person has a defense that prosecutors shouldn’t be required to anticipate that defense. That’s a broad statement of general applicability, of course. It seems, at a minimum, that Lemon committed the crime of misprision of a felony. But, if his recording, if known by those who disrupted the service, encouraged those disruptors to commit crimes, then Lemon is an accessory before the fact. Such acts are prosecuted as a principal.

Daniel Ellsburg went to prison. Nobody at the NYT went to prison. The reason is that nobody at NYT knew beforehand or encouraged Ellsburg commit his crimes.

Rocky (profile) says:

Re:

So, who would be okay if I knew your house would be burglarized, and I went into the house with my cell phone to record that burglary?

False equivalence, nobody burglarized anything.

But, if his recording, if known by those who disrupted the service, encouraged those disruptors to commit crimes, then Lemon is an accessory before the fact. Such acts are prosecuted as a principal.

Are you suggesting that Don Lemon have mental powers to control other peoples behavior? There’s a difference between actively encouraging people to commit an act vs just documenting it.

Perhaps you should take note of how the DOJ went about trying to make a case against Don Lemon and how the judges reacted. When those who are supposed to uphold justice are using secrecy, obfuscation and untruths it isn’t about justice and what is right anymore.

frankcox (profile) says:

Re: Re:

People will do things to “get on tv” that they wouldn’t do otherwise.

So yes, the mere presence of a camera can escalate a situation, even if it’s just there for “documentation”.

Don’t take this to mean that I’m opposed to documenting crimes and official actions that cross the line into criminal behaviour. I’m not defending the actions of the MAGAs but I am pointing out flaws in your reasoning.

frankcox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Try reading that again.

The people in front of Don Lemon’s camera (i.e. people not named Don Lemon) will have an inclination to do things they might not otherwise do in order to be on television.

For many current examples of how this works, look at any of the “influencers” on youtube. Would these jackasses be doing what they’re doing without at least the hope of gaining an audience from it?

“Look at me!”

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re:

It seems, at a minimum, that Lemon committed the crime of misprision of a felony.

It hasn’t been established that entering a church that was open to the public was a felony. You seem to be assuming that it was. And you’d have to assume Lemon knew it was a felony. That’s a lot of mind reading and prognostication you’re doing there. For a defense attorney, you don’t seem to believe in the presumption of innocence.

someoneinnorthms (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I didn’t know I was required to presume anybody innocent on the internet.

A violation of the Klan act would be a felony.

In the state where I practice law, a person can be guilty of a crime vicariously through the actions of other people. For example, if a person knows a second person is going to rob a bank and takes that second person to the bank with that knowledge, the first person is guilty of the bank robbery, even if he drives away after dropping off the robber.

In Lemon’s case, it appears he knew the group he was “journalizing” was going into a church to disrupt the service. His own videos appear to establish that with fair certainty. If the government can establish he did anything beforehand or contemporaneously to aid, encourage, or assist the disruptors, then Lemon is guilty of the same offense that the disruptors committed.

And, here’s the defense lawyer in me coming out: nuh-uhhh! Oh, no he didn’t.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I didn’t know I was required to presume anybody innocent on the internet.

You’re not required to do anything. But if you’re a lawyer making it clear you assume a person is guilty without having reviewed the evidence or provided any evidence of your claims, it speaks poorly of your professional expertise.

A violation of the Klan act would be a felony.

Okay, prove that there was such a violation and that Lemon knew that it was going to be committed.

In the state where I practice law, a person can be guilty of a crime vicariously through the actions of other people.

Lemon isn’t being charged with state crimes and I have a 49/50 chance the event didn’t take place in the state where you practice.

For example, if a person knows a second person is going to rob a bank

If I want into a church that is open to the public, would you say I committed a felony commiserate with robbing a bank? If not, why would you use that as an example?

In Lemon’s case, it appears he knew the group he was “journalizing” was going into a church to disrupt the service.

And which law makes it a felony to disrupt the service? We’ve already seen the feds reference the FACE Act, but that requires physical violence or physical obstruction, neither of which appear to have occurred.

His own videos appear to establish that with fair certainty.

Again, where’s the actual crime?

If the government can establish he did anything beforehand or contemporaneously to aid, encourage, or assist the disruptors, then Lemon is guilty of the same offense that the disruptors committed.

And if there is no crime committed, then he’s not guilty of anything.

And, here’s the defense lawyer in me coming out: nuh-uhhh! Oh, no he didn’t.

If you are actually a lawyer, I pity your clients.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I’m a criminal defense attorney, so maybe I don’t know how time prosecute a criminal case, but it seems to me that if a person has a defense that prosecutors shouldn’t be required to anticipate that defense.

I don’t know, I can think of quite a few defenses that I would expect a prosecutor to think of. Self-defense (where applicable), “I wasn’t there when the crime was committed”, that sort of thing. Seems to me that it should be expected that a well-known journalist would use “I was doing journalism” as a defense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I would expect a prosecutor to ordinarily take self defense into account even if they aren’t required to, because they don’t want to waste resources on a case they know will result in an acquittal.

“I was doing journalism” is not a defense per se, like self defense is. If I’m legitimately defending myself I can commit practically any crime and be found innocent; if I’m legitimately doing journalism I’m still guilty of any crime I commit. What “I was doing journalism” does do, is give a plausible explanation as to how he could have attended the planning session and the protest and yet not be a conspirator. (I have not watched the video he took so I don’t have an opinion as to whether he’s guilty of that conspiracy.)

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“I was doing journalism, which is an enumerated 1st Amendment protected right,” is definitely a defense against a charge that pretends there was some conspiracy and use of physical force or obstruction rather than just a 1st Amendment free speech and right of redress action. The protested individual is a government employee, even if he wasn’t in his government place of work.

Anonymous Coward says:

That is why you want your devices set to maximum cop proof mode

Samsung snd Motorola phones can be configured where they cannot connect to a computer unless the phone is unlocked. Until the phone is unlocked and the USB preferences are set allow tethering snd data flow the contents of your phone are not accessible.

Hopefully for them they had their devices configured that way so that investigators cannot access the contents

Then you just refuse to give them your password.

If your phone has “booby trap” more where too many failed password attempts causes the phone to wipe and reset turn that on

There is no criminal statute anywhere that makes booby trap mode a crime. If the phone wipes and resets because of too many failed password attempts they are just SOL. Using that mode breaks no laws anywhere in any of the 50 states.

Anonymous Coward says:

Hey man, I’m gonna murder someone, but if I film it, I did it as a “journalist”, so now you can’t arrest me.

That’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works, and you KNOW that.

Furthermore, had Nick Shirley busted into an abortion clinic and just filmed the women getting abortions and asked them questions, nevermind interrupt operations, you all would have lost your shit.

Hypocrites who lie, that’s all you are.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Why do all the shit-for-brains trolls here keep comparing walking into an open venue with burglary and murder. If you can’t tell the difference you’re either too stupid or too dishonest to be worth wasting time over.

Abortion clinics, again, are not fucking open venues for the public, you stupid git.

You don’t even know what the word hypocrite means.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Abortion clinics, again, are not fucking open venues for the public, you stupid git.

They are exactly as much so as churches actually, you retard. They are private spaces open to the public and as soon as you asked to leave it is trespassing.

Furthermore, the FACE act makes disrupting either a felony, with basically the same language.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

That’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works, and you KNOW that.

What specific law did Don Lemon break, and where is the evidence that he broke it? Please note that we have video evidence of what happened in the church, so if you try to say “he was part of a violent mob”, we’re going to know you’re saying a bunch of bullshit.

someoneinnorthms (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I feel like 18 USC 248 (a) (2) is a crime that describes what occurred in the church. If Don Lemon did not personally engage in that activity, he can be held vicariously liable for the actions of those who did violate this section. Under this liability theory, he must have had foreknowledge of the others’ actions and done something to aid, encourage, or assist those who violated the law.

Under this statute, anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes with . . . any person lawfully exercising [freedom of religion],” is guilty of a crime. I suppose a Minnesota jury will ultimately acquit Don Lemon, but I would hope you can see how this is a question of fact for a jury.

I believe that the video posted by Don Lemon is sufficient on its own for a prosecution to survive directed verdict.

I think the key distinction that many are willfully ignoring is that this private property WAS open to the public so that anyone who was there could engage in religious service consistent with the owners of the property. Once the owners felt disrupted by the visitors, the visitors’ conditional license to be present was revoked. It was private property. The owners are not required to let anyone engage in any particular actions. If their services were disrupted under the conditions outlined in the statute, then a crime definitely occurred.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I feel like 18 USC 248 (a) (2) is a crime that describes what occurred in the church

I feel like you haven’t addressed the fact that the FACE Act explicitly requires, as you quoted, “force or threat of force or by physical obstruction,” and you, nor anyone defending that claim, have shown where any such thing occurred.

Feel free to link to a video with time stamp of the moment you think this occurred.

Once the owners felt disrupted by the visitors, the visitors’ conditional license to be present was revoked.

You’re inventing things here. The supposed conditional license isn’t conditional if it wasn’t stated. There’s no gut feeling law here. As a lawyer, you’re a terrible lawyer.

Was there statement posted on the wall stating, “only forms of worship we approve of are allowed in this building, otherwise you’re trespassing.”?

You want this to be a crime and you’re letting your bias persuade you by way of assumptions that are not supported by the evidence.

At worst, it was trespassing if they didn’t leave after being asked to leave, though the time delay on that is debatable and a state matter, not a federal matter.

If their services were disrupted under the conditions outlined in the statute, then a crime definitely occurred.

WHERE WAS THE FORCE?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?! Address this question, coward.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“force or threat of force or by physical obstruction,”

There was without question physical obstruction, you fucking retard. They barged in, would not leave when asked, and effectively ended the service. That is EXACTLY the kind of thing the FACE act has been designed to prevent.

It has, for instance, been used to charge (and convict) pro-lifers PRAYING outside outside an abortion clinic.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

There was without question physical obstruction,

Link to the video with a timestamp.

They barged in,

Link to the video with a timestamp.

would not leave when asked,

State trespassing law, as you mentioned. Also, cite it and explain how they violated it according to state case law.

and effectively ended the service. That is EXACTLY the kind of thing the FACE act has been designed to prevent.

Oh, you were the legislator who wrote it or just a mind reader?

It has, for instance, been used to charge (and convict) pro-lifers PRAYING outside outside an abortion clinic.

That was the claim conservatives used when Paulette Harlow was convicted, except she and her fellow anti-choice activists actually did use force and physically obstructed access to a clinic.

Of course you would only remember the lie because you never actually research anything. You believe what your propaganda spigot spews into your numb skull.

Also, Trump pardoned a bunch of people convicted under the FACE Act, so it’s even more of a hypocrisy for Trump’s administration to use it. But the thing is, to accept the pardon, they had to admit to the violations, so their acceptance is a further dispute of the lies that they were just praying.

Facts don’t care about your bullshit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

FACE act and the KKK act, neither of which require “violence” per se, thought they were pretty violent in that they loudly shouted down the service and refused to leave.

They also were all obviously guilty of trespass, once asked to leave, but that ics a state charge and the state is a liberal hell hole that seems intent on letting protestors do whatever they want.

Anyway, it is very much illegal to storm into a church service and shut it down, same as with abortion clinics, Lemon actively participated int doing that, cake boy.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

cake boy

MrWilson has already ripped a lot of the bullshit you were spewing to shreds in comments not directed at you, so I’ll just say this: You are really mad about either (A) me knowing more about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case than you, (B) me supporting the right of a public-facing business to not be coerced into expressing speech, or (C) me being queer and supporting equal rights for queer people⁠—and at this point, I don’t think even you know which one is the right answer.

someoneinnorthms (profile) says:

Thank you for hurling invective. This is the kind of debate that wins hearts and minds.

I may be wrong, but 18 USC 248 (e) (4) appears to define the actus reus in such a way that does not require force. Rendering passage from a place of worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous is considered a physical obstruction. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are as bad as my layering skills?

In most states force does not require violence. It can be as little as the turning of a doorknob on a door. I think there’s all kinds of force involved in the church invasion in which Lemon participated. Also, just to be clear, although I’m clearly a dummy when it comes to these things, I don’t see a requirement under this statute that force be applied to a human body. It just has to utilized.

I appreciate that you don’t want to engage on the issue at an intellectual level. Just please don’t come into my church with that same kind of mess that Lemon did.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re:

Thank you for hurling invective. This is the kind of debate that wins hearts and minds.

Your heart and mind is already lost. I’m not trying to win you over. If you were a decent person, you wouldn’t be trying to provide cover for an authoritarian government.

I may be wrong,

Yes…

but 18 USC 248 (e) (4) appears to define the actus reus in such a way that does not require force.

force, threat of force, or physical obstruction…

Rendering passage from a place of worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous is considered a physical obstruction.

And where in the video did this occur?!? You have made the claim, provide the evidence!

Maybe my reading comprehension skills are as bad as my layering skills?

Maybe your lack of reviewing the evidence is as bad as your spelling skills?

In most states

This is a federal law.

force does not require violence.

The looseness of that definition would make any human act an act of force. Are you suggesting that the legislators who wrote the FACE Act intended to include any human action as force?

Also, just to be clear, although I’m clearly a dummy when it comes to these things, I don’t see a requirement under this statute that force be applied to a human body. It just has to utilized.

It has to be utilized as “force, threat of force, or physical obstruction.” People literally left as they wanted to, meaning the entrance and egress was not obstructed. Give me a link to a video and a timestamp where a person’s ability to enter or leave was obstructed.

I appreciate that you don’t want to engage on the issue at an intellectual level.

I appreciate that you’re intellectually dishonest and pretending that my demand for evidence of your claims is invalid simply because I’m calling you out for being disingenuous. If you wanted to engage on the issue at an intellectual level, you wouldn’t be so loose with your claims and so absent with your evidence.

Just please don’t come into my church with that same kind of mess that Lemon did.

See, this is where I think you’re finally being honest. I’ve previously guessed that you’re a churchgoer. It makes sense that you imagined this happening at your church and you got personally offended by the act, so you let your bias taint your perception.

Note also that the FACE Act specifically allows 1st Amendment acts:

(d)Rules of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed—
(1)to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

So if it was in fact open to the public and 1st Amendment acts of protest occurred, the language of the act preclude prosecution under the act here.

someoneinnorthms (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No offense, MrWilson, but I did not imagine this taking place in my church. Because there’s no way this episode would have ended the way it did if it occurred in my church.

I think we finally got to the crux of you picayune complaints about the relevant law: you have antipathy toward those of us who have a faith. I’ll pray for you anyway.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I did not imagine this taking place in my church. Because there’s no way this episode would have ended the way it did if it occurred in my church.

Then you’re imagining the incident ending an entirely different way and letting that fantasy cloud your judgment: “These people are obviously guilty of something because my church would’ve done [x].” Anyone trying to prosecute those protestors/journalists under the FACE Act must prove those people used force, issued a threat of force, and/or physically obstructed the entrance/exit from being used. The video of the incident shows none of that happening. That fact alone will be a huge problem for federal prosecutors.

you have antipathy toward those of us who have a faith

Speaking personally, I don’t like people who use their faith to justify cruelty and moral heinousness towards other people. You worshipping the Christian God doesn’t matter one whit to me unless you try to make me worship your god or try to force me to live under Biblical law.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Because there’s no way this episode would have ended the way it did if it occurred in my church.

Am I correct in assuming that you’re implying that your churchgoers would engage in violence or threat of violence in response to people protesting the brutality of the federal government? Which cheek is that offering?

I think we finally got to the crux of you picayune complaints about the relevant law: you have antipathy toward those of us who have a faith.

Faith? No. There are plenty of actual Christians/non-Pharisees out on the streets of Minneapolis loving their neighbors as they love themselves. Those people are awesome.

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”

You’re also missing the fact that some of the people who protested in the church were Christians. Nekima Levy Armstrong is a reverend… I’m sure you probably don’t think that counts, but fortunately, your opinion is irrelevant.

I’ll pray for you anyway.

I’d suggest you pray for yourself instead, but it’s clear you only interpret the supposed voice of god as affirming your own selfish perspective. You clearly don’t believe in the words of the bible.

someoneinnorthms (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Do you think there should be a legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens? I’m asking this question because I’m genuinely interested in your answer.

I have yet to be convinced by any actual argument from people on your side because I don’t think I’ve heard an argument based on logic. So, can we start with that question? I literally don’t understand the issue that people have with the policy positions people like me hold on the immigration issue.

No matter how much you insult me, I’d still like to understand your position on the fundamental underlying issue.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Do you think there should be a legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens?

Not when it comes to human rights, no. There’s a reason the Fourth and Fifth Amendments mention “people” instead of “citizens”: Once the government has the power to violate someone’s rights because they’re not a citizen, all it must do if it wants to violate your rights is declare you a non-citizen.

But more to the point: Given how the conversation in this comment chain hadn’t touched on immigration policy, why are you asking about immigration policy now? Feels like you’re trying to deflect from the conversation at hand because you read some uncomfortable truths about yourself and didn’t want to confront them.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Do you think there should be a legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens?

It doesn’t matter what I think. I don’t have the power to change it beyond voting for legislators and executives as one voice in a massive crowd.

There already are legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, and there are overlaps. Non-citizens can’t vote, but they are recognized even by conservative SCOTUS decisions as having constitutional protections and human rights, including rights to due process and freedom of speech and the right to seek asylum.

I also think you’re going to purport to be a Christian, you are opening yourself to criticisms of the inherent hypocrisy in conservative Christianity that directly contradicts biblical teachings and explicitly stated values. Arguing legality while pretending you can compartmentalize your supposed faith from it means either you don’t care about your faith or you don’t care about anything except your own bias.

If legality contradicted your faith, would you violate the law or would you violate your faith?

I’m asking this question because I’m genuinely interested in your answer.

It doesn’t matter if you’re genuinely interested or just pretending to be. It’s not likely you’re able to be convinced by me of anything because people who tend to be open to change aren’t making assertions as you have. You’d only be asking questions instead of making assertions and then JAQing off or sealioning when challenged like Kirk or Shapiro. Pretending to be polite while “logically” discussing the dehumanization of vulnerable people doesn’t win an argument and it isn’t a moral stance. The supposedly polite coldness and lack of empathy isn’t “logic,” it’s apathetic and cruel. Logic and human kindness aren’t mutually exclusive. Being empathetic is logical.

I have yet to be convinced by any actual argument from people on your side because

The first thing I would point out is that you cannot be convinced by “people on” my side because I’m an individual. I don’t have a side except justice and human rights. This isn’t a team sport. I may agree and disagree with people with a variety of perspectives.

I don’t think I’ve heard an argument based on logic.

You’re saying you don’t think you’ve heard logic you’ve agreed with.

Logic isn’t an objective universal. There isn’t a single logic possible for any given topic. And humans are inherently subjective, so there’s always subjective perception of even “pure” logic.

But I’d also question the idea that logic should be a sole qualifier for analyzing a situation, including the application of the law and of morality. Depending on your perspective, morality may not be logical to you. It might be “logical” to purge people from the population if you have a zero sum, fear-based perspective. But that would also be morally repugnant and evil.

So, can we start with that question? I literally don’t understand the issue that people have with the policy positions people like me hold on the immigration issue.

Well, if you think we should remove all non-citizens, including children, including sick children, including children with cancer, from the country by force, including interrogating, brutally assaulting, abducting, ignoring documentation and protective court orders and statuses, immediately taking them to detention centers states away from their residence and family, subjecting them to crowded and unhygienic conditions where measles are currently breaking out, then I’d point out that you’re supporting not just human rights violations, but also due process and constitutional rights violations. You’d also be a religious hypocrite if you at all purport to follow the teachings of Jesus, which makes it even worse.

According to the UN definition of genocide, this counts. It is ethnic cleansing. It is the abduction of children and removal from their parents’ custody. It is the targeted persecution of ethnic groups.

The thing is, you’re free to think immigrants who lack legal status and asylum should be deported, but not support the methods being used. The administration is intentionally being cruel and brutal and gleeful in that brutality. It’s generating social media feeds of suffering for a rabid base.

And the greater thing is that they’re abducting citizens, brutalizing citizens, tossing citizens’ documentation away, smashing car windows of citizens’ vehicles, breaking elderly citizens’ rotator cuffs, tear gassing children who are just walking in front of federal buildings, pepper spraying protesters exercising 1st Amendment rights, shooting and murdering citizens who aren’t actually obstructing them, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

And you could enforce immigration laws without being this cruel. They falsely claimed they were only going after the worst of the worst with criminal records. Those records are accessible to the feds. I used to work for a law enforcement agency. They can just do a query in a database and pull up every person with a record and cross reference for citizenship status and then show up at residences and workplaces. They don’t need to roam cities in paramilitary gear and masks picking up random people with slightly darker skin tones.

So when you pretend this is a disagreement on “policy,” you’re either intentionally being disingenuous or you’re just so myopic about what is going on that you can’t understand that people are most vociferously opposing the actions.

Would you like to coldly discuss the right of the German government to pass the Nuremburg race laws and stroke our beards over erudite ponderings of whether the Jews actually should be in Germany? Sure, concentration camps are awful, but let’s deep dive on the policy.

No matter how much you insult me, I’d still like to understand your position on the fundamental underlying issue.

I’m not insulting you. I’m accurately describing that you hold abhorrent and hypocritical stances. You actively support dehumanization of vulnerable people. You insult yourself. If you don’t want to be described that way, don’t be that way. Getting your feelings hurt and pearl clutching about incivility when children are being abducted by the cruelest fascist foot soldiers that authoritarians can recruit isn’t close to being on the same scale. If you can remain emotionally detached on this topic, then you aren’t safe to be around. And I’m not being hyperbolic at all when I say this. If you think any of this is exaggeration, then you are intentionally avoiding widely available, verifiable information.

someoneinnorthms (profile) says:

I can appreciate your attempts to deflect from a substantive conversation by insulting me. For purposes of this conversations, I will agree that all of the negative things you say about me are true. So there’s no need to repeat them or to hurl new ones; they’re all correct. Now that we have that handled, let’s talk about what Don Lemon purports to have been covering:a protest against immigration policy.

I agree that all people are entitled to basic human rights. What basic human rights are unlawful immigrants not receiving in the United States? If your concern is not about unlawful immigrants, you can say that to help guide our conversation.

Please understand, I am presenting myself tabula rasa, awaiting your logical persuasion so that you can convert me to your side. Surely, converting me and, to use a notable phrase, and changing my mind, is far preferable to shooting me in the neck because we disagree, right? Let’s avoid violence and just talk it out instead. Thank you.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

What basic human rights are unlawful immigrants not receiving in the United States?

Let’s start with due process rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Even if a person is in the country illegally, they deserve the same right to a speedy trial/hearing/whatever for the purposes of determining whether they should be deported. Beyond that, there’s also the guarantee in the Constitution that no one shall be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures or cruel and unusual punishments. Being kidnapped off the streets by masked men wielding guns and transported hundreds-to-thousands of miles away to a concentration camp (or what may as well be one) seems pretty fucking cruel to me.

I am presenting myself tabula rasa, awaiting your logical persuasion so that you can convert me to your side.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. This is a quote from a comment you left that anyone can see by clicking through to your profile info:

I don’t think Trump goes far enough sometimes. I am NOT AT ALL squeamish that Trump wants to remove people from this country who are not citizens. I am NOT AT ALL squeamish about his methods. I’m only sad that he’s being so soft about it.

That doesn’t sound like someone who’s eager to have their mind changed by a reasonable fact-based argument. That sounds like someone who’s eager to put a boot to my neck for 50 grand.

Surely, converting me and, to use a notable phrase, and changing my mind, is far preferable to shooting me in the neck because we disagree, right?

Ooooh, now here’s an oldie from my text expander archive that I haven’t used in a long damn while: [Your rhetorical gimmick will not work on me.](https://www.techdirt.com/2017/08/25/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech/#comment-1767004) And if you think people throwing insults at you or calling your bullshit exactly that is the same thing as actual lethal violence, you’re even more of a disingenuous asshole and you deserve to have your shit autoflagged on sight. If you want a reasonable conversation, stop JAQing off and start actually trying to have a conversation instead of preaching a sermon or trolling for your own (possibly sexual) gratification.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s just so odd to me that people seem to pretend or even believe that no one on the internet has ever encountered what they think are clever rhetorical devices rather than transparent attempts at manipulation. They all just throw up immediate red flags like they’re methods of “logic” about how to trick other people and abuse social stigmas and conventions gleaned from edgelords on 4chan from half-remembered books on debate by old white guys who need to clean their own rooms before offering that advice to others. It’s like they watched the highlight reels of Kirk and Shapiro and didn’t find the raw the footage or the critical responses where that bullshit gets shut down for the disingenuous chaff it is. It’s the same M.O. of people who don’t like you going through their chat history because they want to pretend like you can’t quote anything they’ve ever said because it’s unfair to point out that they don’t care about the truth or consistency and will argue whatever seems to them to benefit their argument in each moment.

“Why are you being so unreasonable and hostile? I’m just politely suggesting we should brutalize vulnerable human beings…”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...