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

[witchway]

Did he have a driver he paid? Did he pay the videographer? Did he not warn them about the FACE Act and that they would all be breaking federal law? If they were also arrested because they were working for Lemon in good faith, then I wonder if they can file a civil lawsuit against him. As a former journalist, he should have known that it was illegal for him to storm a church with a group of agitators during a worship service. I can't imagine a journalist and videographer/team storming an abortion clinic and filming what goes on there.

What facts are this opinion based on.

I think it’s been well established he did not “storm” a church.

Realize being indicted does not automatically equal guilty.

He is not a “former” journalist as many here have explained.

Why do I keep reading comparisons to “abortion clinics” Don Lemon was not in one. If this is regarding the FACE Act, then please say how he violated the act by being in a church.

 

[Cryptic]

What other analysis should we employ in the thread discussing if arresting Lemon was a correct decision or the power abuse?

There may be two concepts at play:

Concept one- Should Lemon's motives be examined?

Websleuths permits the examination of motives in regards to possible perpetrators. Once Lemon was identified as a possible perpetrator (charged), the examination of his motives is routine. There are very likely thousands of threads on this forum where motives of possible perpetrators are discussed

Concept Two: What factors should be examined to show a legitimate arrest, or abuse of power?

I don't know. One test could be if other journalists have pulled stunts and been penalized. But.... this might be hard as journalists pulling similar stunts seem to be exceedingly rare. There might be a reason for that.

 

[Cryptic]

If they were also arrested because they were working for Lemon in good faith, then I wonder if they can file a civil lawsuit against him.

Good point. I think the videographer who has been charged is very likely to file a lawsuit. The ability to file a lawsuit however, may depend on Lemon and her being found guilty.

I think the videographer's best bet would be to plea bargain (Mercy your honor, I am not a major league pro and relied on the famous and seemingly mega knowledgeable Lemon to vet the stunt), then sue Lemon.

 

[Cryptic]

DL is a very wealthy man

I don't know- is he?

Some humans spend everything they earn- and more. This concept holds for humans working in a big box store, pro athletes and Don Lemon.

I have no idea as to the current state of his finances. I do agree that he very likely earned millions in the past.

 

[witchway]

Good point. I think the videographer who has been charged is very likely to file a lawsuit. The ability to file a lawsuit however, may depend on Lemon and her being found guilty.

A lawsuit would be seemingly be strengthened If the videographer has texts of Lemon dismissed any concerns etc.

What? Now a videographer may have texts of Don Lemon dismissing any concerns. Where is this? What lawsuit?

There (not you in particular) appears to be an attack on Don Lemon as a journalist and nefarious unfounded accusations on his intent with no basis in fact. MOO and JMO Yikes

 

[Cryptic]

What? Now a videographer may have texts of Don Lemon dismissing any concerns. Where is this?

I deleted that from my post.

But, yes a videographer may (key word) have evidence that would strengthen a lawsuit against Lemon. Videographers and other contract employees can be pretty astute and question employers- even Don Lemon.

Heck, I saw a carpenter question blue prints once. Granted, the housing developer was not Lemon, but he still noticed something he felt unusual / strange about a load bearing structure and... questioned it. The matter was looked into and determined to be sound.

 

[Summerliz03]

Law is not founded in “vibes” and feelings. MOO.

 

[LAborn]

Pretty good article outlining 1st amendment protection on public vs. private spaces. Unless DL had prior authorization from the church, this could be an issue for him. My impression is sharing recordings without proper consent could be problematic because it's a private space and people expect a degree of privacy, unlike public spaces. Why First Amendment Protections Are Limited in the Don Lemon Arrest — EEW Magazine

 

[Summerliz03]

Pretty good article outlining 1st amendment protection on public vs. private spaces. Unless DL had prior authorization from the church, this could be an issue for him. My impression is sharing recordings without proper consent could be problematic because it's a private space and people expect a degree of privacy, unlike public spaces. Why First Amendment Protections Are Limited in the Don Lemon Arrest — EEW Magazine

I agree with you. The federal government can only charge a trespassing charge for a federal property, not a private church. So the church itself could file a trespassing charge against Don, but the federal government cannot charge him with that (and they haven’t). I guess we’ll have to see if the church itself presses charges against him for the trespassing.

 

[Cryptic]

Law is not founded in “vibes” and feelings. MOO.

Civil law and criminal law are very different matters.

Civil law (laws suit) might (key word) permit "It vibed strange, but the boss assured me everything was ok" concepts.

For example, a boss dismissing voiced concerns from others may increase liability if things go wrong. Boeing was evidently told by many people that the 737 max design gave them "bad vibes" for various reasons. Could this type of evidence been presented against them in a civil lawsuit to show a lack of concern?

 

[LAborn]

I agree with you. The federal government can only charge a trespassing charge for a federal property, not a private church. So the church itself could file a trespassing charge against Don, but the federal government cannot charge him with that (and they haven’t). I guess we’ll have to see if the church itself presses charges against him for the trespassing.

Ohhhhh!! Thanks for pointing out that distinction, I was forgetting the limits of the feds. Good point!!

 

[Summerliz03]

Civil law and criminal law are very different matters.

Civil law (laws suit) may permit "It felt strange, but the boss told me everything was ok" concepts. But... I am not a lawyer either.

I’m also not a lawyer. Don Lemon was charged with a criminal crime, not civil. They don’t go on vibes and feelings. I was more commenting on the multiple posts here that go into their personal feelings of how upset people are that the protesters went into the church. Those feelings really do not matter with this case. It’s that Don Lemon is a journalist. All MOO.

 

[witchway]

Good point. I think the videographer who has been charged is very likely to file a lawsuit. The ability to file a lawsuit however, may depend on Lemon and her being found guilty.

I think the videographer's best bet would be to plea bargain (Mercy your honor, I am not a major league pro and relied on the famous and seemingly mega knowledgeable Lemon to vet the stunt), then sue Lemon.

Why would they sue Don Lemon? Has anyone seen anything regarding the videographer? Was he/she in the indictment? Again, the indictment does not automatically equal guilty.

 

[shotgun09]

In related news to the crime committed on the Cities Church, and Don Lemon's arrest:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2018326184468058566

 

[mickey2942]

I agree with you. The federal government can only charge a trespassing charge for a federal property, not a private church. So the church itself could file a trespassing charge against Don, but the federal government cannot charge him with that (and they haven’t). I guess we’ll have to see if the church itself presses charges against him for the trespassing.

Interesting analysis. And I was pretty much on spot. The entire situation in Minneapolis is out of control.

Federal government overreach on prosecution for citizens exercising freedom of speech. They don't like DL, so let's just charge him with whatever might stick.

The jurisdiction for trespassing on private property is not federal government.

Such an embarrassment.

 

[LAborn]

In related news to the crime committed on the Cities Church, and Don Lemon's arrest:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2018326184468058566

How is this news about Don Lemon? Also it was not a "riot". I'm sure her use of language was very deliberate and very coded--dog whistlie. Unreliable source, btw. JMO

 

[Cryptic]

I’m also not a lawyer. Don Lemon was charged with a criminal crime, not civil. They don’t go on vibes and feelings.

Fully agree about the pending criminal charges.

I was responding to another member who raised the possibility that Lemon might get sued by the videographer.

 

[tricia]

Good Morning Everyone.
I want to address an issue that keeps coming up, especially from members who hold minority opinions in this discussion.

I understand how frustrating it can feel when your view isn’t the popular one. We make sure minority opinions are allowed and heard here. That said, opinions still have to be based on verifiable facts.

Two points need to be clear:

There is no evidence that Don Lemon “stormed” or “barged into” the church. If someone is going to make that claim, there needs to be video or another reliable source to support it.

Don Lemon is not a “former journalist.” He is a journalist.

Disagreement is welcome. Rewriting the facts or adding unproven claims is not.

Before anyone says moderation is being unfair, please understand this: you do not see the many posts we remove from the majority side as well—posts that are taken down for the same reasons, including adding facts not in evidence, going off topic, or violating our rules.

Being challenged on your opinion is not bullying. If you post a minority view, you should expect questions and be prepared to defend it.

If you are genuinely being targeted or bullied, please use the report button so we can address it.

Websleuths has a long-standing reputation for keeping discussions focused, fact-based, and under control. That standard applies to everyone, regardless of viewpoint.
Tricia

 

[Barbb]

Independent journalists are not legally required to inform authorities of a planned protest.

However, ethical considerations may encourage them to report such information to prevent harm. He not only didn't report it but went not knowing where this would take the protest, he himself is on video obstruction the church goers from leaving the church. Children were not allowed to get with their parents, were terrified, crying. Don Lemon was charged with federal civil rights crimes related to his involvement in an anti-ICE protest at a church in Minnesota. He faces charges of conspiracy and interfering with the First Amendment rights of worshippers during the protest.

 

[Summerliz03]

However, ethical considerations may encourage them to report such information to prevent harm. He not only didn't report it but went not knowing where this would take the protest, he himself is on video obstruction the church goers from leaving the church. Children were not allowed to get with their parents, were terrified, crying. Don Lemon was charged with federal civil rights crimes related to his involvement in an anti-ICE protest at a church in Minnesota. He faces charges of conspiracy and interfering with the First Amendment rights of worshippers during the protest.

Can you please show any video where Don Lemon is obstructing or preventing the church parishioners from leaving the church? Do you think asking them questions as a reporter is obstructing? Did he cause physical or emotional harm to them by asking questions? Did he prevent them from ending the interviews and walking away or saying no comment? Can you please show video of him doing any of those things?