‍WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent legal development, the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church was awarded control over the Proud Boys' trademark after the group failed to pay a $2.8 million judgment. This decision stems from a 2020 incident where members of the Proud Boys removed and burned a Black Lives Matter (BLM) banner from the church’s property. Notably, while the banner was destroyed, the church building itself suffered no structural damage—a key fact that the legacy media has conveniently ignored in favor of sensationalist headlines.

Despite these facts, mainstream media outlets have run with headlines implying the Proud Boys “vandalized” the church itself, leading many to falsely believe there was direct damage to the historic building. This deliberate linguistic manipulation and framing bias obscure the reality of the case, pushing a politicized narrative rather than an accurate representation of events.

How the Media Spins the Narrative

The legacy media has once again proven itself to be more interested in activism than journalism. Instead of accurately reporting the details of the case, major outlets have framed the incident in a way that implies the Proud Boys attacked the church itself, rather than simply burning a BLM banner—a distinction that changes the entire context.

Compare the actual event to how it has been framed:

• What happened: A BLM banner was taken down and burned.
• What the media claims: “The Proud Boys vandalized a Black church.”

This is a textbook example of linguistic manipulation—the deliberate use of misleading language to shape public perception. By using the word "vandalism" without clarifying that the church building itself was untouched, media outlets create a false impression of greater harm than what actually occurred.Semantic Infiltration: The Left’s Weaponized LanguageBeyond misleading headlines, this case highlights a broader issue of semantic infiltration, a concept coined by diplomat Fred Iklé to describe how language is hijacked by political movements to redefine terms and subtly shift public opinion.

• “Hate crime” has now been expanded beyond violent acts to include symbolic political gestures, even non-violent acts like burning a banner.
• “Vandalism” is no longer understood as damaging property but can now refer to burning an ideological symbol—but only if the symbol belongs to the left.

This redefinition of terms, much like George Orwell’s concept of Newspeak in 1984, is meant to limit debate and control thought. By controlling how we discuss events, the left manipulates what we are allowed to think about them.The real debate here is not about whether the Proud Boys should have burned a banner, but whether the punishment fits the crime—and whether the legal system is being used to settle ideological scores rather than uphold justice.A Case of Judicial BiasThe $2.8 million judgment against the Proud Boys was already a disproportionate punishment for a symbolic act of protest—especially considering that leftist groups like Antifa have engaged in actual vandalism and destruction with little to no legal repercussions.But the real judicial overreach came when the court ruled that the AME Church could seize ownership of the Proud Boys' trademark, giving them legal rights over the group’s name, branding, and merchandise. This sets an alarming precedent:

• Can a private entity claim ownership over its political opponents through the courts?
• If an Antifa member burns an American flag outside a church, does that church now get to claim Antifa’s trademark and assets?

The ruling is not justice—it is retribution, designed not to uphold the law but to financially cripple and dismantle a political opponent.The Double Standard in American JusticeThe imbalance in judicial rulings is clear and undeniable:

• During the BLM riots of 2020, dozens of churches, businesses, and federal buildings were actually burned or vandalized, yet many of the perpetrators faced no serious consequences.
• In contrast, the Proud Boys burn a banner—a removable cloth sign—and are hit with a multimillion-dollar judgment and the loss of their brand identity.

This is not equal justice under the law—it is ideologically driven persecution. The legal system is being weaponized against conservatives, while left-wing activists commit real destruction with impunity.Conclusion: When Courts Become Political WeaponsThe scales of justice are meant to be balanced, impartial, and fair—but in cases like this, they are tipped in favor of the left. This ruling is not about vandalism, nor about protecting a church—it is about punishing ideological dissent.When the courts cease to be neutral and start ruling in favor of one political ideology over another, we no longer have a justice system—we have a tool of political enforcement. This is a dangerous precedent, and every American, regardless of political affiliation, should be deeply concerned.Justice must remain blind—not weaponized for the political convenience of the left.

References

• AP News – Proud Boys Lose Trademark to Historic Black Church in Court Ruling (2025)
• The Guardian – Proud Boys Must Pay $2.8M to AME Church in Legal Settlement (2025)
• CBS News – Court Grants AME Church Rights Over Proud Boys' Name and Assets (2025)
• The Federalist – How Left-Wing Courts Are Weaponizing the Legal System Against Conservatives (2025)

‍