8 ms·

> In the livestream archived on his YouTube channel, Lemon can be seen meeting with and interviewing the activists before they go to the church, and later chron

by zahlman 9mo ago

> In the livestream archived on his YouTube channel, Lemon can be seen meeting with and interviewing the activists before they go to the church, and later chronicling the disruption inside, interviewing congregants, protesters and a pastor, who asks Lemon and the protesters to leave. Popular comments on the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ctuhv-cck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ctuhv-cck) from within the first couple of days after upload make problems with the pro-Lemon narrative quite clear. Not mentioned is that the interview with the activists discloses a clear plan to "make the [congregation] feel uncomfortable", and that Lemon's interviews were quite hostile and aimed at furthering the protesters' point of view. At one point he could be seen to lean on an interviewee while saying "don't touch me". The protesters did not leave when asked. Everyone who watches the footage is encouraged to consider how they would perceive the actions if this had taken place at a mosque or synagogue rather than a church. It's curious that Reuters could apparently find several "Free press advocates [who] voiced alarm over the arrests", but not any freedom of speech advocates concerned with the congregation's right to freedom of association on private property. It's also strange that the article goes into extensive detail about Lemon's background and similar actions by the Trump administration, but is silent about the apparent motivation for the choice of venue for the protest (the lead pastor, Jonathan Parnell, was suspected of having ties to ICE) which makes the action seem rather like harassment.

zahlman 9mo ago
(It was David Easterwood they were after. I misread some other coverage.)
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago
None of this seems relevant to Lemon being charged with any crimes. Do you know something others don't which would justify ICE acting against what the judge said? > "There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so," the chief judge wrote.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  The judge is factually incorrect, per Lemon's own livestream recording. ICE is not involved in getting the warrant nor making the arrest, and will presumably not be involved in the trial. The purpose of the activists, and the strength of Lemon's connection to them, is obviously relevant to the charges, as the charges specifically allege the thing that the judge wrongly asserts to lack evidence.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago
    > The judge is factually incorrect, per Lemon's own livestream recording. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Pointing to a video is not providing evidence. However, I'm more than willing to watch a timestamped link and read an explanation of the evidence in your words (perhaps several, if required; I just don't want to spend a lot of time refuting this). Occam's Razor suggests (really, screams at the top of its lungs) this is further political retaliation from an administration which is now infamous for its acts of political retaliation (among other things). Why would they be telling the truth this time? Further than that, why should any of this administration's evidence be trusted after the AI manipulation stunt? (Dismissing false evidence as a joke meme is not justification.)

by zahlman 9mo ago

zahlman 9mo ago

(It was David Easterwood they were after. I misread some other coverage.)

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago

None of this seems relevant to Lemon being charged with any crimes. Do you know something others don't which would justify ICE acting against what the judge said? > "There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so," the chief judge wrote.

zahlman 9mo ago
The judge is factually incorrect, per Lemon's own livestream recording. ICE is not involved in getting the warrant nor making the arrest, and will presumably not be involved in the trial. The purpose of the activists, and the strength of Lemon's connection to them, is obviously relevant to the charges, as the charges specifically allege the thing that the judge wrongly asserts to lack evidence.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9mo ago
  > The judge is factually incorrect, per Lemon's own livestream recording. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Pointing to a video is not providing evidence. However, I'm more than willing to watch a timestamped link and read an explanation of the evidence in your words (perhaps several, if required; I just don't want to spend a lot of time refuting this). Occam's Razor suggests (really, screams at the top of its lungs) this is further political retaliation from an administration which is now infamous for its acts of political retaliation (among other things). Why would they be telling the truth this time? Further than that, why should any of this administration's evidence be trusted after the AI manipulation stunt? (Dismissing false evidence as a joke meme is not justification.)