Yes we are, as Lemon and Fort were part of that disruption.
A reporter cannot follow home invaders into a house and claim that they are being journalists when they try to interview the terrified homeowners.
IMO.
However, provided that they themselves are not engaging in the crimes, many states implemented shield laws that protect journalists who document or receive recordings of illegal activity without being prosecuted or charged themselves. For example, protected journalists even when they witnessed and recorded law officers illegally collect bribes, witnessed Black Panther meetings during a time they were considered illegal and document the torture and unlawful imprisonment of prisoners of war in Iraq. Of course, journalists must receive consent from the home or facility owners to enter the premises to interview and record, however, even when they violate this ethical and legal principal they can be held responsible and prosecuted for trespassing but not for the crimes for which they witnessed and documented.
That was one element that was reported.
One of those things RSF counts is government "support for independent media." Our government does not, and should not, be supporting media. That is how this group measures "freedom."
We live in a time when the average citizen, with an internet link, can actually read the documents needed. 25-30 years ago, we could not do that. We don't need the filter of a reporter telling us what it says.
IMO.
JMO but I think it should since the freedom of the press exercised by the media historically seems to have played an integral part of our democracy. It keep us informed, allows us to learn, gain knowledge from multiple different perspectives and build our own thoughts independently to challenge ourselves and others as we make choices based on our own self-interest rather than that of some abusive monarchy, corporate superpower or overarching political structure that stripped the very humanness of other. It helps us unite and organize, like we did for Civil Rights and learn that a wrong must be addressed and made right like with the Flint, Michigan Water Crisis. It helps us engage with our local, state and national government and at least by having media created in multiple different forms and languages, like on radio vs TV vs print, it ensures the news and current events are available to nearly everyone, including those who struggle with illiteracy or hearing and visual disabilities. Experiencing events in different forms can also affect the impact they have on someone, such as I experienced when first hearing that the Twin Towers were gone on the radio and then watching the events of 9/11 unfold when I came home.
Don Lemon talked about the possibility of getting arrested in his livestream. I think he had an idea he was doing something wrong. He also remained after being asked to leave, this suggests he had an awareness he was going against property owner’s wishes. imo
Second, no one in that church was there to be ambush interviewed by Lemon, and no one in that church wanted to be interviewed by Lemon or anyone else. That junk was pushed onto them without their consent. Exactly as it appears to have been planned.
Was Don Lemon there to worship?
No, he stated clearly that he was there to cover the protest inside the church.
He 100% knew the protestors were going to be inside, and interrupt the church service.
He was present at a meeting where it was layed out exactly how it would happen.
Right then and there, admitting why he was there in the first place he made it perfectly clear he was not inside that church for the stated purpose the church was open, but instead had his own agenda for being there. Once the service was initially interrupted by a protestor, he did in fact participate with the on-going interruption by attempting to "interview" people. The church wasn't open to host random journalists to bombard worshippers with questions about civil rights and the US Constitution, but that's exactly what Lemon was doing.
How anyone can say Lemon wasn't part of the disruption is kind of bizarre to me, since he filmed himself doing it.
It appeared to me that DL asked for consent to talk before he began the interview. There were at least three times on camera when viewers can see him explicitly ask interviewees it is okay to talk to them and if they said no he excused himself and was ready to walk away. He thanked each parishioner he spoke to for their time and didn’t block them or grab them when they were ready to cut the conversation short. It seemed DL respected and IMO, it did seem like some churchgoers wanted to share their own viewpoints and emotions too since like the protesters they had their own voice wanted viewers to try to understand and hear their side of things too. In other words, they had their own agency and exercised it with boundaries in terms of if and when they spoke to DL and what topics they would willing to discuss on his platform.
Additionally, the service was already interrupted and halted by the time DL started interviewing church members as noted when the pastor was no longer leading prayer but instead willingly spoke to him before firmly ending the interview so that he could continue to check on his family and comforting parishioners. It did not appear that he interrupted or ambushed anyone trying to continue their own prayer or service privately but rather interviewed those who were either already leaving or were also watching the interactions and tension between the church leaders and the protested. He also repeated a few times he was not a protester but as a reporter or someone who was documented what was going on.
That triggers the statute. IMO.
To have triggered the statue wouldn’t it have to be proven in court he inhibited their exercise of religious freedoms by using force, the threat of force, intimidation, intentionally injure, physical obstruction, interfere with practitioners by limiting their movement or damaging their place of worship? How did he interfere with or limit the movement of those then that gave consent to be interviewed? In my opinion he didn’t but this is just understand from MS Now Andy and reading of the law from Cornell.edu . Of course I could be wrong.
I don’t agree with the protesters interrupting the service and I do think those harassed and terrified the children should be held accountable. I also don’t want to undercut or dismiss the agency and insights of those in the church who shared their thoughts and insights with us, DL and the protesters even as they felt overwhelmed and there was so much tension and confusion around but that is JMO.
MOO/MOP
Discover what reporter's privilege is, why it exists, how it applies to the First Amendment, and how it protects everyone's right to know.
www.freedomforum.org
Learn about trespass, intrusion, misappropriation, and other areas of privacy law.
www.pbs.org
Today, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act against entities and individuals who targeted a synagogue in West Orange, New Jersey, during a November 2024 protest that escalated into violence.
www.justice.gov
www.justice.gov
The Trump administration has reinterpreted the law, historically used to prosecute anti-abortion-rights activists who block reproductive health clinics.
www.ms.now
At a Harvard Law School Library Book Talk, Martha Minow, along with Vicki Jackson and Nikolas Bowie, discussed why the press is in danger — and how to save it.
hls.harvard.edu
www.cjr.org
JMO
