Don Lemon Arrested

[Valcazar]

According to the government's interpretation of the FACE act, it is.
Thats because the FACE act is federal law, not State law

Not sure what you mean by "it" here.
Are you just saying that the government interpretation is that "disrupting a religious service" is against Federal law?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Not sure what you mean by "it" here.
Are you just saying that the government interpretation is that "disrupting a religious service" is against Federal law?

Obviously

 

[Valcazar]

Obviously

Falling asleep and snoring loudly is a Federal crime now?
Talking through the service?
Laughing at the minister?

Damn, son.

 

[squeezer]

I’VE BEEN WARNED, BE CAREFUL COMING BACK TO USA

 

[Dutch Oven]

Whataboutism, I see. You do realize there are several differences between the two. And, the fact that you might not recognize them is troubling.

Silly rabbit! That's not whataboutism. It's using an example to help you understand a point. Clearly, the point was lost on you (and your +1).

 

[Dutch Oven]

Is trespassing on private property a federal crime?
Is disrupting a religious ceremony a federal crime?

Yes, without leading you through all the hoops of the legislation, disrupting a religious service in the manner that Lemon and his group participated in is a federal offence under FACE. Trespassing is state law, but is also subject to criminal sanctions. Of course, trespassing with the intent to commit a further offence of intimidation, as Lemon and his group did, is aggravated trespass (a separate and more serious offence).

 

[Dutch Oven]

Very likely.
There were, after all, people who were acquitted of all charges since they were found to have just wandered in with the crowd, not fought police, and just assumed they were allowed to.
And people who weren't charged at all.

Did any journalist or person who just recorded video get charged with any federal crime?

EVERYONE who took pictures and video for the purpose of publishing them for public access was exercising freedom of the press.

 

[squeezer]

Yes, without leading you through all the hoops of the legislation, disrupting a religious service in the manner that Lemon and his group participated in is a federal offence under FACE. Trespassing is state law, but is also subject to criminal sanctions. Of course, trespassing with the intent to commit a further offence of intimidation, as Lemon and his group did, is aggravated trespass (a separate and more serious offence).

Watch it, it might make a light bulb shine and you may look at Don in a different light.

 

[Frankfooter]

EVERYONE who took pictures and video for the purpose of publishing them for public access was exercising freedom of the press.

Like Don Lemon?

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, without leading you through all the hoops of the legislation, disrupting a religious service in the manner that Lemon and his group participated in is a federal offence under FACE.

See, @richaceg , @Phil C. McNasty ! This is how you do it!
Wave off the details, but say that "in the manner that Lemon and his group participated"!

Don't stupidly assert that "disrupting" in general is a Federal crime.
Notice also that Dutch is avoiding specifics here, because obviously he would have to argue the specific actions fit what the FACE act criminalizes and that's different than just boldly asserting it.
Still, though, he avoids stating complete nonsense with this method.

Trespassing is state law, but is also subject to criminal sanctions.
Of course, trespassing with the intent to commit a further offence of intimidation, as Lemon and his group did, is aggravated trespass (a separate and more serious offence).

And mostly good form again!
He backs off trying to defend a nonsense position of arguing trespassing is Federal law. (There is a way to make Trespassing a Federal crime of course, but Dutch doesn't seem to want to try and play that card.)

Instead he goes for making up "aggrevated trespass" as a law in Minnesota, which obviously knocks down the score here, but not by much because he can plausibly argue he only meant that if you are doing multiple crimes, things can add up.

 

[Valcazar]

EVERYONE who took pictures and video for the purpose of publishing them for public access was exercising freedom of the press.

And I don't think anyone was arrested for that.
Freedom of the press doesn't excuse other crimes.

 

[Dutch Oven]

And I don't think anyone was arrested for that.
Freedom of the press doesn't excuse other crimes.

Correct.

 

[squeezer]

Trump DOJ goes into its Don Lemon case without a key tool: the courts’ trust

Trump DOJ goes into its Don Lemon case without a key tool: the courts’ trust

A motion from Don Lemon and Georgia Fort marks latest push to question the “presumption of regularity” historically given to the government.

www.yahoo.com

 

[mandrill]

Trump DOJ goes into its Don Lemon case without a key tool: the courts’ trust

Trump DOJ goes into its Don Lemon case without a key tool: the courts’ trust

A motion from Don Lemon and Georgia Fort marks latest push to question the “presumption of regularity” historically given to the government.

www.yahoo.com

Probably a non factor. The entire episode is on video. It's just a case of whether Lemon can raise a "freedom of the press" defence and say he was covering a news event.