MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026

  • #441
Is this why there were arrests: it is prohibited to interfere with any person who is seeking to exercise first amendment rights of religious freedom at a place of religious worship?

"Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994

Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit: (2) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship"

It's exactly why the arrests were made.
 
  • #442
For me, imo, the disconnect is that my cultural references for "storming" something are the Bastille and the beaches of Normandy. While I don't approve of the tactic of entering the church -- houses of worship should be left alone imo -- I don't personally equate what I saw in the video with either of those events. Opinions may vary, of course.
I agree it probably is cultural.

I equate storming in as a noisy, unexpected entrance. I'm guessing there were 20+ people in that group.

JMO
 
  • #443
  • #444
  • #445
Why should this matter for why they stormed the church?
I was simply answering a question that was asked. It’s a fact that one of the pastors for that church runs the field office for ICE. You are free to have any opinion you want about a pastor working for ICE.
 
  • #446
Ok and now watching even longer, Don walked into the church while the sermon was still happening, the protesters hadn’t even begun to protest or chant at that point. So he was already in the church when the protests started, therefore, he didn’t storm any church. He walked into the church alone.
IMO, they stormed the sanctuary, specifically at the "excuse me, Pastor" cue, which was the signal as far as I can tell. Don Lemon was very much in there or you wouldn't have heard it on HIS livestream. The protest started *after* his arrival. IMO.
 
  • #447
Was it a plan that was told about or did that happen? VERY impossible to believe these protesters were going or did tell the children their parents were going to hell and satan etc. They were there to be very different from what ICE was doing. IMO
I find that hard to believe too and am considering it a rumor until evidence is shared. From the videos I have viewed, there was nothing like that going on, but I understand it was chaotic and upsetting situation.

But it sounds like "satanic panic" type rumors from the 80s, tbh.

I will change my mind if I learn something that warrants a change of mind.

jmo

p.s. I do not condone interrupting any worship service.
 
  • #448
if DL and other reporters had not covered this incident would we even know about protesters storming a church and interfering with parishioners' rights of religions freedoms to worship?
Pretty sure reporters could cover this incident without entering the church.
 
  • #449
FWIW, the few journalists I know take their role very seriously and they know the very first amendment of the Bills of Rights calls for freedom of the press.

Democracy depends on free press, to hold authority to accountability, to keep the public informed. Responsible voting depends on being informed - and people are informed through a free press. This not a light matter and journalists take it seriously (as well as knowing they have to "sell newspapers").

I find that hard to believe too and am considering it a rumor until evidence is shared. From the videos I have viewed, there was nothing like that going on, but I understand it was chaotic and upsetting situation.

But it sounds like "satanic panic" type rumors from the 80s, tbh.

I will change my mind if I learn something that warrants a change of mind.

jmo

p.s. I do not condone interrupting any worship service.

He was there because he was part of the group of protestors.
That's the only way he'd know where to be and what time to be there.

So I'd say he acted like a protestor by being a part of and having knowledge of the details of it (he admits it all on camera), then claiming to be there as a journalist.

I also think it was really sleazy thing to do, to be part of a group of people that disrupt a religious worship service so that you can live stream "breaking news" that you're a participant in.

jmo
Being a journalist does not give immunity from criminal law. The First Amendment protects newsgathering, not participation in illegal conduct. If Don Lemon were only observing and filming, even inside a controversial protest, charges would be very shaky but prosecutors are alleging more than observation. They say he targeted the pastor personally, yelled insults during a worship service and helped intimidate or interfere with worship.

A grand jury made up of regular citizens agreed and indicted Lemon. A grand jury indictment is legally much stronger than a magistrate's denial and that may matter a lot here.



 
  • #450
Occam's razor would tell me that a journalist on the scene was covering the situation as press. What do you think of ANY journalist at ANY event? That they planned it? Is that the first assumption?

Was LEMON, with a long career in broadcast news and media, there as press or as participant?

jmo
I'd say at this point that he was a participant.
 
  • #451
I agree it probably is cultural.

I equate storming in as a noisy, unexpected entrance. I'm guessing there were 20+ people in that group.

JMO
If protesters had stayed outside the church, charges could still apply if prosecutors proved the required elements of the FACE act. Intent to interfere with worship, intimidation or obstruction, yelling insults, harassing individuals or creating a threatening atmosphere. Many anti-abortion activists were charged and they never entered the abortion clinics. Interesting case.
 
  • #452
IMO, they stormed the sanctuary, specifically at the "excuse me, Pastor" cue, which was the signal as far as I can tell. Don Lemon was very much in there or you wouldn't have heard it on HIS livestream. The protest started *after* his arrival. IMO.
Yes, I agree with you, the protests started after his arrival. I was simply saying, per the YouTube, Don Lemon himself did not “storm the church”. He walked in alone. He wasn’t with any protestors. To me, that speaks more to how and why he was there - to film and report on the protest as a journalist. He put himself in the church to film and document protest and interview people. He didn’t come in with any protestors. He was not protesting, he was there as a journalist. All MOO.
 
  • #453
This looks like someone's blog doing cultural/historical analysis and opinion. It specifies that the character's name was indeed "Mickey Dugan." The general message of this seems to be that American society was racist at the time, which is totally true. But the term "yellow journalism" was specifically part of the state's social studies curriculum when I was in high school not so long ago - in a state that is known for its efforts towards inclusive speech - so I suspect that the approach of the author you cite is only one of many possible historical interpretations.

While I support inclusive language, in this case I think the word policing is just a distraction from the real issue at hand here, and it shouldn't lead us away from the issue of journalism, civil rights, and Don Lemon's arrest.

JMO
JMO supporting inclusive language at all times (no matter your perception) is just respectful. Isnt that the point of inclusive language?

Otherwise, the dog piling just continues. IMO
 
  • #454
Yes, I agree with you, the protests started after his arrival. I was simply saying, per the YouTube, Don Lemon himself did not “storm the church”. He walked in alone. He wasn’t with any protestors. To me, that speaks more to how and why he was there - to film and report on the protest as a journalist. He put himself in the church to film and document protest and interview people. He didn’t come in with any protestors. He was not protesting, he was there as a journalist. All MOO.
It's my perception that he walked in alone to meet up with the protesters because none of them carpooled with him. As a total aside, I don't blame them. 30 some minutes listening to him backseat drive raised my blood pressure. Anyway . . .
 
  • #455
Pretty sure reporters could cover this incident without entering the church.
I agree, and I think a real reporter would know the FACE Act and if they received a tip of a "scoop" then they would be there to film when the protesters arrived and then film them when they exited the church and would also be interviewing church members as they left the church to learn their point of view of what took place inside. They would not enter the church with a group of agitators during a worship service, their are ethical journalists and others who are not so ethical.
 
  • #456
Code of Ethics, Society of Professional Journalism

Minimize Harm​

Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

  • Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

I think this should also be followed by non-credentialed, independent journalists.

 
  • #457
  • #458
  • #459
  • #460
"He has appeared on chummy podcasts with William Wolfe, a Baptist activist and author who wrote of Alex Pretti’s killing: 'Another foolish person has lost their life trying to obstruct ICE. Here’s my reaction: I don’t care.'"

Very Christian 🙄
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
1,273
Total visitors
1,353

Forum statistics

Threads
639,242
Messages
18,739,592
Members
244,617
Latest member
HappyFlour85
Back
Top