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

[PrairieWind]

I couldn’t just call myself a reporter because I do not have press credentials and a 30 year career in journalism. Why are we still debating if Don Lemon is a journalist?

Whether DL is a journalist or not is irrelevant. lets just assume he is. It doesn't change anything. His actions meet the elements of the charged crime.

 

[Summerliz03]

This is a scheduled worship service. DL is putting a microphone into the face of the paster asking him questions. This is obviously not what the pastor would be doing at the point otherwise. he is part of a group that has clogged the entrances and is arguing with the congregation. The congregation must leave by the side doors. Previous FACE ACT case law says that this is obstruction. Again, the elements of the crime in regard to DL are met.

Then I guess the DOJ has a slam dunk case in your opinion. I don’t share that opinion. We can wait and see how the case plays out.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

And that justifies an attack on his chruch?

I feel like this language is misleading. There was no "attack" on the church, there was a protest in the church, which was wrong, but a protest and some shouting is not an attack IMO.

Entering the church during a service was not the right thing to do, the protesters should have done so from outside, however this thread isnt about the rights and wrongs of the protesters, it is about whether the 2 journalists also broke the law, which in my opinion they did not, and not to put words in your mouth but I believe you have made it clear that in your opinion, they did.

Whichever side of the discussion you land on, thats what we should be discussing.

 

[witchway]

This is a scheduled worship service. DL is putting a microphone into the face of the paster asking him questions. This is obviously not what the pastor would be doing at the point otherwise. he is part of a group that has clogged the entrances and is arguing with the congregation. The congregation must leave by the side doors. Previous FACE ACT case law says that this is obstruction. Again, the elements of the crime in regard to DL are met.

Where else would he put his microphone when waiting for a response from the pastor?

 

[Rolypolyoly]

But do you understand why the Journalist label isn't a defense here? If DL is obstructing the service, he is violating the FACE Act, it doesnt matter if he is a journalist. Even journalists have to follow the law. DL whether he thought so or not, was violating the FACE Act. He was interfering and obstructing.

DL did not interfere or obstruct the service, the protesters did that. DL interviewed people in the aftermath, there was no current service happening when he started interviewing. It doesnt really matter how the service ended, but that in that moment it had. It might feel morally grey to some people, but thats not the same as illegal.
Moo.

 

[HmmMysterious]

I understand that. But he is still a private person and now that his church has been attacked, (a federally prosecuted crime) seeking to embarrass him, is he not also now a victim?

Maybe he shouldn't have worked for a bunch of thugs who are basically the real life version of the Peacekeepers from the Hunger Games.

 

[branmuffin]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ...
I'm commenting that as a pastor who is paid by his congregation that his salary could become dangerously low if some of the congregants choose not to attend a church where a pastor seems to ignore Christ's teachings. A pastor who is not open about his relationship with the circumstances that is keeping their city in an upheaval. He may have no choice where he goes next, if the SBC finds him more trouble than he's worth in Minneapolis. Not everything is black and white, PW. One does have to read between the lines sometimes.

 

[moonglow123]

I feel like this language is misleading. There was no "attack" on the church, there was a protest in the church, which was wrong, but a protest and some shouting is not an attack IMO.

Entering the church during a service was not the right thing to do, the protesters should have done so from outside, however this thread isnt about the rights and wrongs of the protesters, it is about whether the 2 journalists also broke the law, which in my opinion they did not, and not to put words in your mouth but I believe you have made it clear that in your opinion, they did.

Whichever side of the discussion you land on, thats what we should be discussing.

Yes, the attack wording made me uncomfortable too. Demonstration, protest, but attack? And the insinuation that it was violent. I have not seen proof of Lemon being violent, forceful or physically obstructive.

He was also calmly interviewing parishioners and the pastor and allowing them to voice their thoughts.

Again - may not agree with it, but I could see trespassing charges. But accusing him of committing a forceful felony seems excessive and very difficult to prove at least imo.

 

[PrairieWind]

I'm commenting that as a pastor who is paid by his congregation that his salary could become dangerously low if some of the congregants choose not to attend a church where a pastor seems to ignore Christ's teachings. A pastor who is not open about his relationship with the circumstances that is keeping their city in an upheaval. He may have no choice where he goes next, if the SBC finds him more trouble than he's worth in Minneapolis. Not everything is black and white, PW. One does have to read between the lines sometimes.

But the congregants did attend the church right? And that bothered the militants who then decided that it was their job to attack that church and make it dangerous to the congregants to attend. Honestly, I think FAR more serious charges could be coming in the future.

 

[PrairieWind]

Maybe he shouldn't have worked for a bunch of thugs who are basically the real life version of the Peacekeepers from the Hunger Games.

so it is Websleuths job to determine who can be members of what church?

 

[Ruminations]

When is traumatizing children valid?

DBM. Too easy to snark.

We all agree that children should be protected.

MOO

 

[MsMarple]

The Justice Department failed to tell a magistrate judge about a 1980 law protecting journalists in its application materials for a warrant to search a Washington Post reporter’s home last month as part of a leak investigation, an unsealed court filing shows.
…
“By not alerting the judge to the existence of a federal law that is supposed to limit searches for reporting materials, it may have greased the skids for the judge agreeing to the warrant when otherwise the judge might have scrutinized it more carefully,” Mr. Rottman said.

The 1980 law, the Privacy Protection Act, says “it shall be unlawful” for investigators to search for or seize journalistic work product and documentary materials unless the reporters themselves are suspected of committing certain crimes related to those materials.

DOJ Failed to Address Press Law in Application to Search Washington Post Reporter’s Home

The Justice Department did not address a 1980 law that generally bars warrants for reporting material when it sought to seize a Washington Post reporter’s devices, an unsealed filing shows.

www.nytimes.com

 

[PrairieWind]

I feel like this language is misleading. There was no "attack" on the church, there was a protest in the church, which was wrong, but a protest and some shouting is not an attack IMO.

Entering the church during a service was not the right thing to do, the protesters should have done so from outside, however this thread isnt about the rights and wrongs of the protesters, it is about whether the 2 journalists also broke the law, which in my opinion they did not, and not to put words in your mouth but I believe you have made it clear that in your opinion, they did.

Whichever side of the discussion you land on, thats what we should be discussing.

the FBI quotes church members saying they were threatened, they could not leave, they were called Nazi's, the had to leave out a side exit (forcing people to leave by side exits has been found to be violation of FACE Act) and blocking cars in the parking lot is NOT an attack? How is that just a protest? The lawful scheduled church service was halted.

 

[branmuffin]

This is a scheduled worship service. DL is putting a microphone into the face of the paster asking him questions. This is obviously not what the pastor would be doing at the point otherwise. he is part of a group that has clogged the entrances and is arguing with the congregation. The congregation must leave by the side doors. Previous FACE ACT case law says that this is obstruction. Again, the elements of the crime in regard to DL are met.

What is the date of the previous FACE ACT case law? Is it prior to January 2025?

But the congregants did attend the church right? And that bothered the militants who then decided that it was their job to attack that church and make it dangerous to the congregants to attend. Honestly, I think FAR more serious charges could be coming in the future.

You're making an assumption that the congregants know about his alternate job.

 

[SouthAussie]

Whether DL is a journalist or not is irrelevant. lets just assume he is. It doesn't change anything. His actions meet the elements of the charged crime.

It is not irrelevant. It is what is causing the uproar among press organisations and citizens-who-want-to-know.
People are not loudly opposing his arrest because his being a journalist is irrelevant.

Magistrates have ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Don. So the DOJ formed a grand jury, presented whatever information they wanted to provide, and got an indictment.

 

[Magic8Ball]

Where else would he put his microphone when waiting for a response from the pastor?

The point is that he shouldn't have had a microphone in the face of a pastor during a Constitutionally protected worship service in the first place.

That in and of itself is a violation of the FACE act. He interfered with the ability of the people in the church to practice their 1A rights to freedom of religion by interfering with their order of worship.

It's a very clear violation, actually.

Had DL sat down quietly in a back pew and merely documented what was happening in the church without interfering/impeding the service, he may have had a legal defense.

His protestations that he was there as a "journalist" might not ring true to a jury once they see the footage.

That argument didn't hold sway with the Grand Jury that indicted him.

And even if he WAS acting in the role of a journalist, journalists aren't immunized when it comes to interfering with 1A rights. They don't have carte blanche to run roughshod over the FACE act because press badge.

So there's that.

JMO.

 

[JennieM]

Hard to say. He was a professional journalist until 2023 when he worked for CNN. My guess is that the change from professional to independent is the same as other professionals.

That is, as an employed professional, there are professional ethics and standards that govern what professionals do during, and outside of, work. Violation of those professional ethics can result in job loss. That may be why Don Lemon was let go in 2023.

Professionals who are not employed, but who continue with their craft independently, are no longer governed by professional ethics and standards. That is, those ethics and standards are voluntary. That is not to suggest that Don Lemon no longer adhered to professional ethics and standards, only that he could not experience job loss through violation of those ethics and standards.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

The man is a journalist. Please stop trying to downplay and slur his lifetime journalistic credentials with professional vs independent.

He is a journalist and his job is to report.

 

[PrairieWind]

The Justice Department failed to tell a magistrate judge about a 1980 law protecting journalists in its application materials for a warrant to search a Washington Post reporter’s home last month as part of a leak investigation, an unsealed court filing shows.
…
“By not alerting the judge to the existence of a federal law that is supposed to limit searches for reporting materials, it may have greased the skids for the judge agreeing to the warrant when otherwise the judge might have scrutinized it more carefully,” Mr. Rottman said.

The 1980 law, the Privacy Protection Act, says “it shall be unlawful” for investigators to search for or seize journalistic work product and documentary materials unless the reporters themselves are suspected of committing certain crimes related to those materials.

DOJ Failed to Address Press Law in Application to Search Washington Post Reporter’s Home

The Justice Department did not address a 1980 law that generally bars warrants for reporting material when it sought to seize a Washington Post reporter’s devices, an unsealed filing shows.

www.nytimes.com

What is the date of the previous FACE ACT case law? Is it prior to January 2025?

You're making an assumption that the congregants know about his alternate job.

Would it be ok for a white male or group thereof, to walk into a mosque at the beginning of prayers, begin yelling and prevent the prayers, for the purpose of telling those in attendance that a member of their mosque was an employee of a government agency? And then refuse to leave until the prayer service was abandoned?

 

[PrairieWind]

Where else would he put his microphone when waiting for a response from the pastor?

Well he could have waited until after the church service to talk to him, instead of, you know, interfering with the church service.

 

[JennieM]

Well he could have waited until after the church service to talk to him, instead of, you know, interfering with the church service.

Wasn’t the church service disrupted by the protest?