Lowell is a very accomplished attorney, and if I were in this kind of trouble, I’d be lucky to have him (and very, very broke in the end). However, this defense is a loser for several reasons, the first of which is that Lemon wasn’t the only party to this incident that had First Amendment rights at stake. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religious expression, the core of which is the right to worship in one’s own church in peace. Even people claiming to be journalists can’t interrupt worship services and demand impromptu “interviews” with the minister or celebrant, especially inside the church on private property. Lemon filmed himself preparing with the instigators outside before invading the church, and his “interview” consisted of demanding answers to the instigators’ claims and demands.
They arrested the main ghettopotamus first. They have her phone. They can show coordination between the “journalist” Lemon and the other rioters.
The 1st Amendment stops the government from preventing your speech against it.
It has nothing to do with protecting your speech and actions against another person.
Problem is if he wins this case then any so called ‘journalist’ (I’m thinking mainly leftists) can follow suit and take place storming religious services claiming they are journalists. Any mob can do it with an invited journalist to head up the pack.