Reply #247: No you just called him a self-agrandising attention seeker.

[TheMadMonk]

You say he only has himself to blame for the public's reaction.

By characterising it as a battle between a deliberate, irresponsible disrupter and his community you are clearly implying that he should not have attempted to bring the law to that community.

So whilst you are not precisely denying him his constitutional rights, you clearly indicated that his motives are sufficently impure, that his exercising those rights is irresponsible and by implication that his (or I presume anyone's) exercise of those rights is wrong.