By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former CNN host Don Lemon pleaded not guilty to federal civil rights charges stemming from his coverage of a protest at a Minnesota church. Lemon stated he was present as a journalist to chronicle the event, not to participate, and vowed to fight what he described as “baseless charges.” His attorney plans to raise First Amendment issues, emphasizing the importance of a free press in holding power accountable. Several other individuals, including civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong and independent journalist Georgia Fort, also face charges related to the protest.
Read the original article here
Don Lemon has entered a plea of not guilty to federal civil rights charges stemming from an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protest in Minnesota. His legal team has indicated a strong intention to raise First Amendment issues, asserting that Lemon was present at the church solely to report on the events, not to actively participate in the protest itself. This distinction is crucial, as it frames his actions as journalistic rather than as those of a demonstrator.
The matter of Lemon’s confiscated phone also remains a significant point of contention. His attorney requested its return, noting it was taken during his arrest in Los Angeles. Prosecutors, however, stated the phone is currently in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that the search warrant for it is sealed, meaning it cannot be returned until that search process is completed. This bureaucratic delay has led some to speculate that the phone might not be returned until long after any potential trial has concluded, raising concerns about the integrity and timeliness of the legal proceedings.
There’s a sense that this whole affair could be characterized as an instance of “lawfare,” a strategic use of legal processes to achieve political or personal objectives. Some observers believe the prosecution might be politically motivated, perhaps as retribution for Lemon’s past reporting or to intimidate journalists who might cover similar protests. The idea that the Department of Justice, under a particular administration, might be more focused on other matters than on prosecuting such cases is also being discussed, implying a potential lack of seriousness on the part of the prosecution.
The core of the defense argument appears to be that Lemon was simply doing his job as a journalist, documenting events, conducting interviews, and reporting on the protest. The actions of filming, speaking with organizers, and interacting with church members are all considered standard journalistic practices. Therefore, the charges are viewed by some as an attempt to stifle or discourage this kind of reporting, particularly when it involves critical coverage of government agencies like ICE.
This situation is seen by some as a deliberate attempt to discourage not just protestors but also journalists from covering sensitive events. The implication is that only media that acts as a “stenographer” or “cheerleader” for the administration is deemed acceptable, rather than independent reporting that might be critical. This perspective suggests a broader agenda to control the media narrative and limit free press access to certain stories.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that this case is less about actual wrongdoing and more about intimidation and political maneuvering. The hope is that such attempts to “f— him over” will be unsuccessful. The belief that the prosecution might be driven by “hurt feelings from the right” rather than legitimate legal grounds is also being voiced. The notion that “the process is the punishment” highlights the concern that the mere act of being subjected to a federal investigation and charges, regardless of the outcome, can be a significant burden and deterrent.
The sheer pettiness of the alleged motivation is a recurring theme. Some feel that those behind these charges are acting out of a sense of personal grievance or a desire to “cross” Lemon. This is viewed as a form of political retribution aimed at creating a controlled media environment devoid of genuine independent journalists. The fear is that this could embolden further attempts to control or influence reporting.
The idea that Lemon was arrested for “crossing Dear Leader” underscores the perception of this being a personal attack rather than a legally sound prosecution. The belief that the administration is “always projection” with their accusations suggests a projection of their own perceived wrongdoings onto others. The hope that Lemon might be able to sue the administration for wrongful arrest and prosecution is also being discussed, with the potential for significant legal repercussions for the government.
The narrative of Don Lemon being a victim of “schoolyard bully intimidation tactics” amplified by the power of the government is a strong one. Despite the resources of the state, there’s a feeling that the perpetrators are not particularly bright or competent, leading to miscalculations. The unexpected resistance encountered in places like Minneapolis, Portland, and Los Angeles is seen as having thrown off the intended strategy.
The underlying goal, as perceived by some, was to use the presence of federal agents to either intimidate protestors into submission or to instigate riots, thereby providing an excuse for a crackdown. When these strategies failed to materialize as planned, the response has been to resort to increased “bullying.” The hope is that even if Lemon is not universally liked, this situation could galvanize fence-sitters to support him and, by extension, the principles of free journalism.
The potential legal battle is acknowledged to be costly and time-consuming, with an uncertain outcome depending on the judge. However, many believe the benefits for Lemon, in terms of increased attention and potential subscribers, could far outweigh the inconveniences and legal fees, especially if the case is ultimately dropped. This is seen as creating “martyrs” who become symbols of resistance through the very act of being targeted.
The broader context of government actions, including the use of teargas and other forceful tactics against protestors, makes the arrest of journalists seem like a logical, albeit disturbing, extension of this pattern. The intent is to send a clear message that critical reporting will not be tolerated. The acknowledgment that this is “not successful” doesn’t negate the underlying goal of intimidation, which is seen as a primary motivation.
The discussion also touches on the inherent power of protests themselves. The significant effort to silence and discredit them is taken as evidence of their effectiveness. Even if the immediate outcome of Lemon’s case is uncertain, the underlying principle that protests hold power and that attempts to suppress them are indicative of their impact remains a central theme in the ongoing discourse.