I realize that there are some people that don’t really want the first amendment to cover speech they don’t like and religions they don’t like, but it does. As it relates to the FACE act that includes interruption of those religious services they don’t like too.
Yes, I agree, and these statements do not refute anything I've written in this thread. Besides, what do they even have to do with the ad hominem point we've been discussing? Anyway, we can just move on from that, I guess.
> the first amendment
In this case, the first amendment, as a matter of law, isn't relevant in the context of those who had their religious service interrupted: the service in question was not interrupted by the government. The first amendment concern in this case is whether or not Don Lemon's right to journalistic freedom is being infringed since he's the one who's actually facing criminal prosecution for actions which seem a lot like journalism.
> the FACE act
It appears that Don Lemon did nothing which violates this Act. I guess if you disagree with the judge who found there was no probable cause of such a violation for an arrest warrant, you're more than welcome to explain why. (I mean, surely it's not simply because you disagree with Don Lemon's politics, that would be embarrassing.)
I am sure how from my comments you could have any idea what my opinion about Don Lemon in this situation would be…
But if you must know, I think it’s a long shot that he will be convicted, but he damn sure didn’t make it easy on himself. He should have followed his own advice on his livestream when he was in the car and said “I don’t think I should go in…”
