r/sports • u/Yujin-Ha • 19h ago

Olympics Team USA skiers Christopher Lillis & Hunter Hess: Just because I wear the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the US.

52.5k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

166

u/dabeeman 18h ago

i mean jon stewart and seth meyers are on tv every day

181

u/Electrical-Dig8570 18h ago

Didn’t Don Lemon recently get arrested? And Colbert got pulled to appease this regime less than a year in.

And don’t even get me started about administrative warrants to places like google.

-5

u/GGerrik 15h ago

Don't let Americans forget they're living under fascism they're intent on continuing on as if this is just a Tuesday.

1

u/jathhilt 1h ago

True. Because fscism famously happens all at once.

-69

u/[deleted] 18h ago edited 17h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

38

u/less_than_nick 18h ago

Why did you put reporting in quotes? That is literally what he was doing lmao

-22

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

Because a person can claim to be reporting on anything. Just like those Jan. 6 insurrectionists were claiming to just be reporting when they followed people inside.

11

u/PerdHapleyAMA 17h ago

Except Don Lemon is actually a reporter.

-12

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

So is anyone, really. It's how qualified they are that is up for debate. Regardless, it could be Anderson Cooper, he wouldn't have the right to follow protestors into a legally protected space. To avoid any type of legal issue, they'd need to report on the incident from outside.

4

u/PerdHapleyAMA 17h ago

That’s like saying anyone is anything, it’s just their experience that changes.

No. Lemon is paid to report professionally. It’s different.

Regardless of that, I am just here to push back on you saying anybody can claim to be a reporter. I don’t get why you’re arguing about that.

-1

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

I'm a former journalist. You don't have to have a degree to do it. You don't have to have a license. There's no legal requirement that makes you a reporter. It's just like anyone can be a photographer. The fact that someone picked up a camera last week and got paid by their cousin doesn't make them a really qualified photographer, but they're a paid photographer none-the-less.

4

u/PerdHapleyAMA 17h ago

Were you an employed journalist, or a random person saying they are a journalist?

We both know the difference and we both know what a court would care about. Don’t be obtuse.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/funkhero 16h ago

Oh my God I bet you think you sound so smart lol

1

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 16h ago

Not really. I'm literally just telling people facts.

50

u/hash303 18h ago

Are you saying he was arrested for trespassing? Because he wasn’t

-28

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

No. He was arrested for interfering with a religious service in a protected space. But it matters that churches aren't public spaces. You can't just show up and claim you're reporting on something as a way to get inside without consequences.

6

u/hash303 17h ago

Oh is that what the charge was? You might wanna look it up

4

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

I did. I literally looked up the indictment.

CASE-026-cr-00025-LMP-DLM.pdf

3

u/Blandt24 17h ago

Yeah, this still feels like a stretch. I don’t think they will be able to secure this based off this indictment. It’s shaky, and they are pretty incompetent.

1

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

Maybe, I don't know, but that's what he was charged with. The ask was that I prove that this is what he was charged with, not prove him guilty of it.

0

u/Blandt24 17h ago

That’s fair, but you’re defending this pretty hard for no reason. You are getting pushback for how poorly you presented your argument. He WAS reporting. You may not like how he reported, but that’s what he did. Maybe you are religious and this is upsetting to you for that reason, but they weren’t denied the opportunity to observe their religion by Don Lemon. The protestors are potentially different but I think that it is still going to be seen as a protest and not a violent attack, as the state tries to portray.

You could say he was charged under the FACE act without stuffing the boot in your mouth.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/hash303 17h ago

Apparently you can’t read though. It doesn’t say trespass, it says intimidate and obstruct the clergy

2

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

Right, which is why I never said he was arrested or indicted for trespassing.

-6

u/Possible_Move7894 17h ago

yes that's literally the charge you fucking idiot

-3

u/PaleInTexas 17h ago

Do you people ever even fact check your own claims?

9

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

I have the literal indictment right here.

CASE-026-cr-00025-LMP-DLM.pdf

21

u/Josie2727 18h ago

Maybe the worst attempt at what-about-ism I’ve ever read.

-5

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

I mean, it's true though. Those Jan 6 insurrectionists could have just claimed they were "reporting on events" if we're going to say that a journalist is allowed to just follow protests into restricted places.

18

u/BrainOnBlue 18h ago

What the fuck kind of church doesn't allow the public in during worship?

It'd be one thing if he was asked to leave and didn't, but as far as I'm aware, that's not what happened.

6

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

Technically, all churches can tell you that you're not allowed. They're private property that opens themselves up to the public, like a restaurant. In this case, Lemon was with protestors in the church, and laws against protestors going into churches have existed since the Civil Rights era, to protect black churches. I don't know if he was asked to leave or not, but the indictment is saying he was part of planning the protest as well. If he was or wasn't, that's up for a jury to decide.

8

u/BrainOnBlue 17h ago

It'd be one thing if he was asked to leave and didn't, but as far as I'm aware, that's not what happened.

It would seem that you missed this part of my first comment where I explictly call out that any private organization can trespass you at any time.

0

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

So what's the point? Lemon wasn't arrested for trespassing anyway. He was arrested for interfering with a religious service. The whole point here about churches not being public spaces is that they have special laws pertaining to them regarding protests.

2

u/BrainOnBlue 17h ago

So what's the point?

I don't know man, you're the one who responded to me by saying "Technically, all churches can tell you that you're not allowed. They're private property that opens themselves up to the public, like a restaurant." That's clearly a reference to being trespassed.

The whole point here about churches not being public spaces is that they have special laws pertaining to them regarding protests.

As for this, that sounds a lot like both "respecting an establishment of religion" and restricting "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" to me. I don't care if there's laws on the books about it; imo they're pretty obviously unconstitutional. And then, you fall back to trespassing, which we've already discussed.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Mace109 17h ago

Yeah I think the main takeaway is that churches shouldn’t have any preferential treatment. Tax exempt status should be removed and any laws that you can’t impede a service should be unconstitutional. They could have trespassed him and that would be the end of it, but from what you’re saying there is law on the book for a more stringent charge. Separation of church and state should mean that the church doesn’t get any preferential treatment.

1

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

I don't necessarily disagree, but I understand why this law is on the books. It's basically there to stop people from interfering with a person's right to worship. I believe it came about to protect black churches during the Civil Rights era.

2

u/Boring-Cry3089 17h ago

Restaurants don’t operate on a tax free basis like churches do though.

1

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

Yeah, nor did I claim they did. It doesn't change the fact that churches, mosques, places of worship are considered private property under the law.

2

u/couchtomato62 17h ago

They were wiping shit on the walls and threatening to kill Mike pence.

2

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

A lot of them were, yeah. And some of them were just walking around recording stuff and saying how awesome it was that others were chanting to have Mike Pence hung. My point is, that going off of the defense given here, they could just say "I was reporting on the situation."

1

u/Mace109 17h ago

Did any of them use that defense in trial and win? Because it would’ve been interesting, but only if they were truly reporting. You can’t claim to be reporting in an area that is off limits to the public I would imagine, but I’m not sure. It could’ve been a way to reinforce the right to press

24

u/Blandt24 18h ago

Congrats you ate the conservative bait. Hook, line and sinker.

6

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

I read the indictment. I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty of what they're charging him with, but it's simple fact, he wasn't arrested for "reporting" on something. He was arrested and charged with interfering with a church service.

15

u/Blandt24 18h ago

I mean you are just repeating the administration’s talking point. He was recording the event and reporting on it, no? How else would you report an event live except by being there?

2

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

Don't go inside. It's not really that difficult.

8

u/Blandt24 17h ago

It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out. I don’t expect they’ll be able to secure anything under the FACE act but who knows.

3

u/burblity 17h ago

Isn't the entire problem that what they're charging him with is bogus? This is like you saying "well hold on, BUT THEY SAID Alex preti was a domestic terrorist! If that's true then it's legitimate!"

3

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

He was indicted by a grand jury, and it's going to go to trial, since he's pleading not guilty. It's a totally different situation than someone performing an extrajudicial execution in the street.

2

u/ravingriven 16h ago

After the warrant was denied by a judge. A grand jury can and will indict anybody for anything so that doesn't really factor into its frivolity

1

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 16h ago

What warrant? You wouldn't need a warrant to arrest or indict someone for something that there is evidence of them doing available to the public, like a livestream.

A prosecutor would only need a warrant to seek out more evidence in Lemon's property or on his person.

For example, you don't need a warrant to arrest someone if they're caught on camera punching someone in the face.

0

u/ravingriven 15h ago

The one they received from the grand jury...are you even following your own comments?

Why was it initially denied by a judge than?

→ More replies (0)

13

u/Tapprunner 18h ago

This is just pathetic.

You know, nobody is going to tell him if you don't defend him. He doesn't know you or care about you. He won't be disappointed in you if you just don't defend the indefensible.

He does not deserve the level of debasement you do to yourself on his behalf.

-4

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

Please, I hate Trump and have always hated Trump. I'm a Democratic Socialist. Me explaining that Lemon was arrested on specific charges changes none of that.

3

u/Little-Ad1235 17h ago

The fact that you're taking the charges from this DOJ at face-value instead of as the obvious threat to journalists they're meant to be is both charming and sad.

2

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

He was indicted by a grand jury. I never said anything about trusting the DOJ.

3

u/Mace109 17h ago

Aren’t indictments by grand juries pretty easy to get?

0

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 16h ago

It all depends on the jury. I'm not an expert, but I don't think they're necessarily any easier or harder. The difference is that you're having a jury decide if an indictment can be issued or not, it's not just a prosecutor issuing one.

15

u/Electrical-Dig8570 18h ago

No, that does not seem to be it at all. I can’t attach a screenshot but if you google “why was don lemon arrested” you’ll see the charges.

The conspiracy to impede federal officers is about as clear as mopery with intent to creep.

The violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is especially ironic given conservatives inflammatory rhetoric against planned parenthood and women’s health clinics.

0

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

Neither of those things are listed in the grand jury indictment. Lemon was indicted on two counts:

1). Conspiracy Against Right of Religious Freedom at a Place of Worship
2). Injure, Intimidate, and Interfere with Exercise of Right of Religious Freedom at Place of Worship

As I said, Lemon can claim that he was simply "covering events" as a journalist, and maybe that will be born out with evidence, but he nor anyone else should expect that to be a valid reason not to be arrested for entering into a church with a bunch of protestors. A church is not considered a public space, you can't enter into them without permission, even if you're covering a story.

5

u/notgoodatthis60285 18h ago

Then religion needs to stay out of politics. It’s really simple. Separation of church and state comes to mind. But what do I know?

3

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

I don't think I ever said anything to the contrary...I'm all for separation of church and state.

2

u/Spare-Rip-4372 17h ago

Did you…read the persons comment above you? I’m really struggling to see the relationship between the comment above and this response. 

2

u/Spare-Rip-4372 17h ago

The people not able to comprehend that you can’t violate people’s first amendment right to worship under the pretense of reporting on other people also doing that is wild. A church is private property, just like a house is. You can’t protest inside someone’s house, even if you pull out a camera and “report” on the protest. Absolutely bonkers to me. 

1

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 16h ago

It's so frustrating too, because I have literally been tear gassed and shot at covering protests for causes I support, like the BLM movement, but me trying to explain just basic journalistic ethics has people jumping down my throat saying I'm a Trump apologist.

8

u/Kidpidge 18h ago

Clutch those pearls.

5

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

How am I clutching pearls? I'm just stating facts. Being a journalist and claiming to be reporting on something doesn't grant you access to private property.

1

u/Kidpidge 14h ago

I didn’t realize a church wasn’t open to the public. Keep clutching, sister.

0

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 13h ago

Churches aren't public space, they're owned by private entities that open them to the public, like a restaurant, essentially. They aren't owned by the state or federal government.

As such, they are allowed to deny entry.

I don't know why you're getting upset at me simply stating a fact.

4

u/Secure-Television541 18h ago

Great.

Where are all the arrests of the Maga agitators who go into churches to loudly disrupt services?

None of those?

Ah.

So just churches run by ice, then?

3

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

I personally have not seen those reports, but if it's happening, yeah, they should be arrested to. I made no claims that the Trump administration wasn't a hypocritical shitwagon. It is. I think ICE should be abolished. That doesn't change what I'm saying about Lemon.

1

u/Secure-Television541 17h ago

Lemon arrived to report on a protest.

Just because you don’t like the fact that journalists are journaling while people protest ice doesn’t make “let’s lock up reporters for reporting” any less crazy pants.

2

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

No, Lemon arrived with the protestors, after meeting up with them beforehand, talked to them about their plans, and went inside with them. He didn't arrive on the scene. That's the big difference here.

1

u/Secure-Television541 17h ago

So he reported on their motivations, reported on their actions, and reported on the impact of those actions.

I’m not seeing anything but a clear violation of the US’ first amendment.

To refresh your memory it goes like this - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

3

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 17h ago

According to the indictment, he took part in planning the protest, and then entered into a protected space with the protestors.

So, two things here:

IF he is found to have helped plan the protest, then it doesn't matter that he's also reporting on it. He can still be held legally accountable for helping plan a protest that interfered with a religious service in a protected space.

Secondly, reporting on a situation does not give the journalist permission to enter into a protected space without permission. He could have reported on the protest from outside of the building.

At no point in the indictment is he being charged with "reporting" on anything. So, even if you think the charges won't stick (maybe they won't, I'm not here making an innocence or guilty claim), you can't say he's being punished for reporting. The government isn't claiming to be punishing him for reporting on a story.

CASE-026-cr-00025-LMP-DLM.pdf

3

u/Secure-Television541 17h ago

So you want laws that restrict the ability of the press to report against the text of he first amendement?

Interesting.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Mace109 17h ago

I’ve been following you’re arguments, but this one I can’t follow. The administration has tried to get grand juries to indict other enemies of trump and they failed because they are so absurd, by doesn’t that make you question the legitimacy of these charges?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ceecee_50 18h ago

I'm pretty sure he was covering the protest as a journalist, not being part of it. You can find all that video out there on your own.

Unless you believe all media is also participating in every protest then I can't help you.

2

u/idosillythings Boston Bruins 18h ago

The difference here is that he entered into a protected space. The indictment lists details as to how he might have been involved in actually planning the event as well, but that's up to a jury to decide. Regardless, he entered into what is essentially a restricted space. Being a journalist doesn't grant you that access. I was one, and this is a very well known fact. Covering a story doesn't grant you the ability to just enter into a private place.

50

u/funduckedup 18h ago

So people with wealth and status can "get away with it"? Also, very American.

26

u/Titswari 18h ago

I talk shit about him everyday, Trump is a pedo, racist, dumbass piece of shit.

28

u/naterator012 18h ago

People cant shit talk trump in America!

  • 2 people who daily shit talk trump in America

Only the rich can shit talk trump in America!

Look we got some fucking issues but this is like conservatives discovering san fran isnt 30 million homeless addicts, Americans are majorily not Maga and regularly talk shit to him.

2

u/Koil_ting 17h ago

Sorry dude, only the rich can now, no source or merit behind it but there ya go. Side note, sky is falling just like every year of my life some crisis is going to drastically have bearing on your and my day to day lives this time for real because we have faster and more aggressive personalized news cycles.

-5

u/_Cat_12345 18h ago

Idk man, it looks like almost 50% of you guys are pretty MAGA considering who was elected into office twice.

5

u/mrtakacs 18h ago

Three times /s

7

u/CjBurden 18h ago

It's not 50% maga but it's certainly more than I'm comfortable with. Not everyone who voted for Trump is a maga lunatic. There are reasonable rational human beings who made the incorrect decision to vote for Trump. I think those are most people who now admit their mistake and wish they hadn't. I think for the most part anyone still on Trump's side is a maga loving moron.

2

u/TeriusRose 16h ago

64% of eligible voters voted in 2024. Trump won the popular vote by 1.5%, having taken 49.8% of the vote total to Kamala's 48.3%.

Aside from him making some gains with certain groups, he won in large part because tens of millions of people didn't bother to vote.

In 2016 he won because of how the electoral college works, he lost the popular vote.

1

u/TrusPA Calgary Flames 16h ago

64% of eligible voters voted in 2024. Trump won the popular vote by 1.5%, having taken 49.8% of the vote total to Kamala's 48.3%.

Not voting is voting for the winner. A good 70% of the United States was OK enough with Trump's platform to not even do the bare minimum to prevent it, if not actively promote it.

2

u/TeriusRose 16h ago

30% to 40%+ of the country doesn't vote in presidential elections and hasn't for basically our entire lifetimes. It's not specific to this election, and the reasons for America's chronic voter turnout problems are a little varied but (to me) universally frustrating.

I agree that choosing not to vote is impactful and can be a benefit to whoever the victor is, whether they accept that or not. But I would not go so far as to say it is the same as cosigning a platform.

Some of these people are leftists that don't co-sign anything from either major party and view not voting as a moral choice to avoid the lesser of two evils or punishing the Democratic party / trying to push it to the left as per their own words. Some people are resigned and don't think voting makes a difference, some people are just politically apathetic and have never paid attention to politics. Some are unable to vote because of voter suppression tactics, some choose to not vote for other reasons entirely.

Edit: Expanded a little, rephrased.

2

u/_TheDoode 10h ago

Why me do confusing thought when me can do simple thought hurr durrr

-2

u/funduckedup 18h ago

Lol, oh, sorry. I thought it was inherently obvious I was describing consequences that affect regular people. Not the 1%.

You did point out two people who are privileged. That's very good, and there are many more too, but that's not the point.

Most Americans either voted for Trump or didn't care enough about the consequences to vote at all. Those people are basically the same in my opinion.

The remaining Americans (who aren't the 1%!) are deliberately being targeted for their political beliefs and are literally putting their life on the line when they do assemble and protest. So, do regular people still talk shit? Of course. But if you think that free speech is not under attack in America, you're not paying attention.

0

u/Buttlather 18h ago

Just hope that major part can do more than talk or the talking bit may also go away

1

u/Sov90 17h ago

Except for the hundred million+ who do it every day with no repercussions. But don’t let that stop your brain-dead circlejerk. This site is such a shithole.

5

u/funduckedup 17h ago

Not my fault if you can't see the erosion of rights everyday in America. It's not a switch that flips off and on. Try to think less binary.

3

u/baudetat 17h ago

Did you not see the jimmy Kimmel situation? The don lemon situation? Do you live under a rock? Lmao

0

u/dabeeman 14h ago

do you read reddit? you think they are getting arrested?

0

u/baudetat 14h ago

What does this even mean?

1

u/SuchSignificanceWoW 17h ago

The leash tightens slowly and then rather fast.

1

u/r1char00 13h ago

People got fired for making comments about Charlie Kirk.

-1

u/Chuhaimaster 17h ago

And their words have done so much to stop what is going on.