Liberal Host Goes Silent When Shown New EVIDENCE Exposing Don Lemon

Quick Overview

The host concludes that Don Lemon did not illegally break the law by recording interviews with his phone outside a church, arguing that the distinction lies in whether the protesters were actively protesting or simply present, and Lemon's actions did not meet the legal standard for intimidation under the Face Act.

Key Points: The host argues that Don Lemon recording people outside a church with his cell phone does not constitute illegal intimidation under the Face Act. The key distinction is whether the individuals were actively protesting or simply present, noting that Lemon's crew was filming people who were present. The host claims that if Lemon was in the building and chanting, that would be different, but he was outside where people were leaving the service. The host points out that Lemon claimed he had no prior knowledge that the location was a church, which he argues is relevant. The host differentiates between Lemon's actions and the protesters' actions, stating that the protesters were chanting and screaming, which he considers disruptive. The host states he will re-examine the exact verbage of the incident, admitting he is not a lawyer regarding the specific legal standard. The video includes footage of Don Lemon's crew confronting individuals outside a church in snowy conditions (0:26-0:34, 2:47-2:57).

Context: The video centers on a debate between two hosts regarding an incident where journalist Don Lemon was criticized for recording people outside a church with his phone, an action his critics suggested was intimidation or illegal under the Freedom to Access Public Evidences Act (Face Act). The host reviewing the situation attempts to differentiate Lemon's actions from illegal conduct by analyzing the context of the recording and the behavior of the people involved, including those who were protesting and those who were simply leaving the premises.

Detailed Analysis

The discussion revolves around whether Don Lemon and his camera crew broke the law by recording people outside a church, specifically referencing the Face Act. The host argues that Lemon's actions were not illegal because the people being filmed were not actively protesting or intimidating anyone; some were just leaving the church. The host recounts the evidence, including footage of Lemon's crew confronting an older man outside in the snow (0:26), where the confrontation escalated with the crew questioning the man about his beliefs. The host asserts that Lemon's crew was recording people who were present, not necessarily protesting, and that Lemon himself was not inside chanting. The host concedes he is not a lawyer but suggests that if the individuals were not actively protesting, then recording them does not meet the threshold for intimidation under the Face Act, which typically targets obstruction or disruption of religious services. He notes that Lemon claimed he did not know it was a church when he arrived, which is a crucial detail. The core of the argument is that the conduct of the protesters (chanting and screaming) was disruptive, whereas Lemon's act of recording was merely documenting people leaving, which he argues is not illegal harassment or intimidation.