Don Lemon's constitutional crisis

Don Lemon's attorney is attempting to get his case dismissed. The problem he's facing is a constitutional showdown. According to this Alpha News article, "Fort and Lemon, along with other notable figures such as William Kelly and Nekima Levy Armstrong, were among the 38 individuals charged in connection to the incident. Both Fort and Lemon have argued that they were not active participants in the mob but were there simply as journalists. The individuals charged in the case targeted Cities Church because they believed one of the pastors worked for ICE."

The first problem is that Cities Church is private property, which means Cities Church controls access to the church. Cities Church isn't obligated to letting anyone in, though that's the custom. The next problem facing Fort and Lemon is a legal balancing act. In addition to not getting permission to enter Cities Church, they're fighting to see which group's First Amendment rights are more important. Is the right to practice journalism more important than the right to worship? At best, that's a sticky wicked.

That's before throwing in the FACE Act. FACE is an acronym for "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act." In order to get past the Senate filibuster, Democrats had to sweeten the pot by including not "to interfere with someone's access to reproductive health services or religious worship." That got them past the 60-vote threshold.

This looks like it fits the FACE Act perfectly:

That's more than interfering "with a religious service." The FACE Act isn't kind to people interrupting worship services. I suspect that throws a wrench into Lemon's legal strategy, too. The attorneys have to focus on the constitutional fight but they must focus on the FACE Act, too. It makes people wonder if this isn't a ploy by the attorneys to see how the prosecutors handle things. The defense might want to see what evidence the prosecutors have, too. This is rich:

“If the First Amendment is to mean anything, it must halt the government’s prosecution against Fort for doing precisely what it protects: covering and reporting on newsworthy events,” Fort’s motion says.

When are religious services "reporting on newsworthy events?" A: When media are there livestreaming the services as they're happening. Again, the mob entered private property to disrupt the worship service. The so-called reporters don't have the right to enter private property any more than the mob had that right.

True North Legal general counsel Renee Carlson, one of the attorneys representing Cities Church, said in a prior statement that the "First Amendment does not allow premeditated plots or coordinated actions to violate the sanctity of a sanctuary, disrupt worship, and intimidate small children. There is no ‘press pass’ to invade a sanctuary or to conspire to interrupt religious services," she added.

It'll be interesting to see if the prosecutors have evidence of Fort and Lemon hanging around with the foul-mouthed mob before the service.