[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Maru

Instead of guessing, we can read the indictment... I linked it above:





The primary argument seems to be that he and others impeded on the rights of others, ie their rights to religious freedom/freedom of expression which are contained also within the 1st amendment. That would be an issue only if it is found that Lemon was "working with" them to achieve this goal rather than "just" documenting, which makes him part of the operation itself. In the charging documents, they point out that he is seen to be cornering individuals for interviews and questioning, not allowing people to leave. So the streaming aspect of it is very much active in what is going on, if interpreted that way...

I think yes he's technically guilty, but it's border enough to fall outside of being fully explicit. It'll be legally tenuous because historically US courts are hyper-conservative when it comes to the handling of 1st amendment. Cases are often struck if it even barely touches 1st amendment in places.

I don't think the goal is to suppress his speech as his speech is still being maintained. (His videos however are his own worst evidence). He's not being charged for opinions being said. He is being charged for intent to obstruct a church proceeding and still has full protections to speak out. And let's be honest, he'll very easily profit from continuing to do so.

Edit: It's a stretch to say because someone is charged that the other person doesn't like that automatically means "silencing" them. That can easily be said for any politician that is charged (including Donald Trump) and that's a major problem I have with that argument, because vast majority of Americans want to see justice in some form with any of the corruption that runs rampant.. This broad argument is why politicians can skate free from under a judge because this is what they rely on to political maneuver around their own responsibility to hold other politicians to account. We see that logic in federal rulings in writing frequently... Judges don't want to be involved in high profile spats like this and err on the side of caution. Consider they're politically appointed by the parties and it's not unknown in the US for a judge to be targeted for "bad rulings". (See: members of SCOTUS being targeted for their decisions...)

On appeal, they did determine the charges should've been fine, but refused to sign:





^^ and they did just that, they went through grand jury.

Their main concern via a derisive party:



Well yes... the people involved in these activities are stupid enough to see these obstacles as a huge win if it is seen the courts will help with pushing back. The leaders don't mind going to jail, it's theater for them.

The people it really deters are the small content creators on both ends of it looking to profit off of filming live action/action hero-style journalism — and there are quite a few of them after watching hours of protests myself...

There were already a few more incidents of protesters harassing churchgoers (people in parking lots) that I'd seen today, including illegal entry into churches within the past 24 hours.

Back to the charges... I didn't look into why yet, but it is weird they separated their charges from the "ring leaders", but it may be their cases will be tried differently. Stuff the media doesn't explain to everyday people because it wants you mad and stuff.

*edit/correction: Oh interesting, they're on the same indictment, but it was just unsealed after they submitted it differently so they could sign off on the other arrest(s). It's just odd it only led to the 2 arrests on the 24th and yet the others weren't picked up until Lemon was, so was there a problem with their charges?

Anyway, an interesting case for comparison (or contrast) is Project Veritas:

FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/1...n-press-521307







Veritas is certainly more directly involved in activism than Don. But consider they used the Biden diary to "open the door" legally to a warrant to his home. If they had found anything, they could've charged him. They didn't have to do this with Lemon because he live streamed himself committing a crime. Though it will be interesting if they use this to get access to greater evidence for their case. Veritas acts as an intermediary for whistleblowers, but arguably they way they recruit such people to infiltrate valuable targets may make them less of an intermediary depending on how one sees their marketing.

Lawsuit they lost in 2025:

Federal Judge Confirms $120K Verdict Against Project Veritas for Undercover Sting on Democracy Partners
https://publiclawlibrary.org/federal...racy-partners/

Anyone can be a reporter that uses interesting tactics to get the story, but just be ready with funds for when it backfires.

Edit: Added more above (it's labeled)

Thanks for the information Maru, it's much appreciated.

I personally still stand by that I wouldn't want Lemon to be punished over this, but I do get that I don't live there tbf so my opinion is irrelevant.