> Obviously a joke, and we're stupid for not seeing it as one, eh? ... Do you understand what mockery is? The "joke" is distorting her image. The reality is t

> Obviously a joke, and we're stupid for not seeing it as one, eh? ... Do you understand what mockery is? The "joke" is distorting her image. The reality is that she was arrested. The story is trying to present things as if distorting her image is somehow misrepresenting what happened. But she was in fact arrested, and nobody disputes that. The sense of humour and critical thinking skill is what allows one to recognize the alteration of the footage. Paying attention to the surrounding context makes it clear that the footage is altered from a real event, and not made up entirely. I don't need to see the post to understand these things. (And neither does anything you posted disagree with my analysis.) I am not being disingenuous. I accepted that the footage is altered. Because it doesn't matter. > Obviously he was joking when he said he would do all those terrible things! What "terrible things" are you referring to? As the press release explains, there was a coordinated disruption of the church service, they said they would arrest her for it, and they did. And as the video makes clear, the disruption was a violation of the church attendees' rights. The church is private property and the protesters were trespassing. They did not leave when asked. They harassed innocent people for no clear reason. It is in fact perfectly reasonable for the administration to be saying things like > WE DO NOT TOLERATE ATTACKS ON PLACES OF WORSHIP. because they shouldn't. Imagine if it had been a mosque instead of a church; if it had been Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon; if it had been about some political cause you disagree with instead of one you agree with. Would you be reacting the same way? I don't think you would.