A far-right social media influencer now faces up to five years in prison after destroying a permitted ice sculpture at the Minnesota State Capitol, transforming an anti-ICE message into pro-ICE advocacy through vandalism.

Felony Charges Filed Against Edward Lang

Ramsey County prosecutors charged 30-year-old Edward Jacob Lang with first-degree property damage, a felony carrying potential penalties of five years imprisonment and $10,000 in fines. The incident occurred on February 5 at approximately 2:30 p.m. when Lang, wearing camouflage clothing, kicked down portions of an ice sculpture reading “PROSECUTE ICE.” By destroying the letters “SECUTE,” Lang altered the display to read “PRO ICE.” State troopers witnessed the vandalism and immediately detained Lang.

The Common Defense Organization had legally commissioned the artwork, paying $6,250 to a local artist and securing proper permits for display from 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. The organization planned additional expenditures of $600 for professional removal and intended to donate the sculpture to a local business after the permitted period ended.

First Amendment Defense Claims

When confronted by law enforcement, Lang defended his actions as protected speech, claiming he exercised his “First Amendment right to artistic expression.” He argued the ice structure could not sustain itself and recorded the incident for his social media platforms. However, prosecutors directly addressed this defense in their complaint, acknowledging that while the First Amendment protects artistic expression like creating ice sculptures, constitutional protections do not extend to damaging another person’s property.

Legal Implications and Precedent

Lang appeared in Ramsey County court on Friday afternoon and remains in custody at the county jail. This case highlights the boundaries between protected political expression and criminal property destruction. The charges demonstrate that claiming artistic or political motivations cannot shield individuals from consequences when their actions damage lawfully permitted displays on public property. The prosecution’s response emphasizes that constitutional rights must be exercised within legal boundaries, particularly regarding others’ property rights on government premises.