Is there any practical difference between freedom of speech for the individual and freedom of press that is relevant to Don Lemon's case? As far as I can tell there is none. Freedom of the press does not mean that the press can participate in a crime while acquiring or disseminating information, any more than an individual can participate in a crime while speaking their mind. The only meaningful right given to the press but not to individuals that I can find is limited protection from being forced to reveal their sources, which is not relevant here.

Your rights do not change just because you wear a badge that says journalist.

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 5:07pm:


He has been charged with one. We are yet to see if it sticks.

I am not claiming that freedom of the press is a significant issue here. I was asking why all the MSM articles I read on it devoted most of their coverage to freedom of the press. I agree with you that it is irrelevant, if that is what you are trying to say.

freediver wrote Yesterday at 4:31pm:


Quote:


Quote:

the freedom of the press

This protects the right of people to report on events and interview willing people including at protests.

Lemon did nothing outside of the context of a reporter of fact. He interviewed people on both sides equally.



About 1:30 Lemon interviewing the pastor. Just after Lemon saying that he was there to cronicle only.

Melanias purse wrote Yesterday at 6:30pm:


I am all for religious rights.

I don't get your point. Anyone is allowed to become a journalist. Fair enough, the government cannot demand licences like they do for medicine. But that is also not relevant to Don's case, and not a "special" privilege that is different from individual freedoms. You could not restrict the right of "the press" to say things without also restricting the right of individuals to say things.

Quote:


How does it do so any differently to individual rights? Are you saying people are not allowed to do these things unless they are officially part of "the press," which the government is not allowed to officialise in any way?

freediver wrote Yesterday at 7:26pm:


The point isn't that it also applies to others but that the coverage includes the press. The protection is freedom of the press, Lemon is a member of the press and was acting in that capacity at the time. He was activly working as a journalist. The point that anyone reporting on anything that is to be published is legitimately acting in a press capacity is not relivant in this case. That is just throwing non relivant mud in the water.

Georgia Fort was an independant Journalist who was also arrested in the same way.

What we see here is an Authoritarian breach of the first amendment.

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 5:07pm:


Let him do the same thing at a Mosque and see what happens. He is no more a journalist than greggy here. His credentials expired when he was fired from CNN.

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 9:45pm:


And that's okay. One can hardly expect the DOJ to go after only people who have committed crimes, shurely.

As Mort says, Don Lemon's guilty of impersonating a journalist.

As Freediver says, journalists have no rights at all - the Press isn't even included in the First Amendment.

And as Gordon says, Don faces 11 years in jail for violating a preacher's civil rights and deserves all that and more.

Of course Don Lemon hasn't committed a crime. Who cares about that?

He's tinted.