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

[SouthAussie]

On the heels of being arrested over his reporting of an anti-ICE protest at a Minnesota church, Don Lemon is set to receive a lifetime achievement award at the 12th annual Truth Awards.

The Truth Awards are “dedicated to honoring Black LGBTQ+ trailblazers and allies whose impact spans popular culture, media, politics and the arts.” Specifically, Lemon will be feted for his “unwavering dedication to journalism that informs, challenges and inspires change.”

“This occasion is more than recognition, it’s a powerful testament to resilience,”
“Celebrating these pioneers is not just an acknowledgment, it’s a call to action. Their stories energize us to break through complacency, demonstrating that true change demands fearless vision and unwavering dedication.”

Don Lemon to Be Honored With Lifetime Achievement Award at Truth Awards

The recently arrested former CNN anchor will be joined on the honoree program by new Grammy winner Durand Bernarr, reality TV vet Carlos King and Jenifer Lewis.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[SouthAussie]

Don Lemon delivered a full-throated defense of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution at the tenth annual Blue Jacket Fashion Show following his arrest related to an anti-ICE protest in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Don Lemon speaks out at charity event after Minneapolis protest arrest

Lemon, 59, revealed that Bill Nye the Science Guy convinced him to attend the tenth annual Blue Jacket Fashion Show following his arrest related to an anti-ICE protest in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Well, I mean if you say protesters should have stayed outside you should technically say the same thing about Fort and Lemon. But they didn't, and here we all are, getting to know each in a boiling hot thread. JMO

That's a false equivalency. It would be like saying "sure, person X shouldn't have been in that alley shooting person Y, but then Journalist X shouldn't have been there covering it."

A journalist at a crime scene does not make the journalist guilty of the crime.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I don't understand why the 40 protesters and an independent journalist did not stop and think about whether what they intended to do was moral, ethical, justified, and legal. I certainly don't understand anyone defending or cheering the decision to cause trauma to children at church during Sunday morning service.

We've heard from the organizer that her intent was to inform the congregation that a member of their church is a federal officer. Presumably, that was understood by protesters and the independent journalist prior to entering the church. Presumably all protesters and the independent journalist knew that children were attending the Sunday morning church service.

I suspect that when it comes First Amendment rights, it will be decided that Press rights (freedom of news media to report without government censorship) did not justify the violation of Religion rights (the right to practice religion freely).

~ in my opinion ~​

I wish we would stop using the word trauma repeatedly. Not every adverse event causes trauma, but it's become a buzz word on social media to object to certain behaviors because who can argue that traumatizing kids is bad? I don't agree with what the protestors did, but I disagree that it was DL's actions that caused anyone trauma or that his actions were illegal nor that it was he who prevented anyone from practicing their religion.

I go back to: there's a reason two separate judges threw this out. They know the law. They decided DL didn't break it.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The independent journalist should have considered professional journalism code of ethics and standards to assess whether his actions were legal under First Amendment press rights in the context of the FACE Act and First Amendment religion rights. That is, he had a higher responsibility to make an independent decision regarding interviewing a pastor and the congregation during a scheduled religious meeting.

SBMFF.

Except the journalistic societies have come out to defend DL. It's only his detractors that repeatedly bring up professional journalistic code of ethics and standards. As far as the professional journalistic organizations go -- the experts on journalistic code of ethics -- they support DL.

Links from Society of Professional Journalists posted throughout this thread.

 

[PrairieWind]

SBMFF.

Except the journalistic societies have come out to defend DL. It's only his detractors that repeatedly bring up professional journalistic code of ethics and standards. As far as the professional journalistic organizations go -- the experts on journalistic code of ethics -- they support DL.

Links from Society of Professional Journalists posted throughout this thread.

But if Don Lemon had been in an alley as you stated above, this wouldn't be an issue. The alley is a public place But he chose to enter into not just a private property, but a legally protected private property, which he KNEW was a church before he entered. And which he CHOSE to stay in after being asked to leave. He meets the elements of the crime he is charged with and will also have to provide testimony against the others.

As for the Society of Professional Journalists, I don't think this means much. Their membership is now only about 4,000. And despite their comments, Lemon in this report violated soooo many of their ethics or code of conduct requirements. Their support is purely political, not professional.

 

[otto]

SBMFF.

Except the journalistic societies have come out to defend DL. It's only his detractors that repeatedly bring up professional journalistic code of ethics and standards. As far as the professional journalistic organizations go -- the experts on journalistic code of ethics -- they support DL.

Links from Society of Professional Journalists posted throughout this thread.

The independent journalist cites First Amendment rights to enter a church during a scheduled church service to interview the congregation and the pastor. Does the First Amendment give him that right?

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Well, I mean if you say protesters should have stayed outside you should technically say the same thing about Fort and Lemon. But they didn't, and here we all are, getting to know each in a boiling hot thread. JMO

Not at all, Fort and Lemon are journalists who were there specifically to cover a story, once that story moved inside so did the reporters. They were there to document and thats what they did IMO.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Not at all, Fort and Lemon are journalists who were there specifically to cover a story, once that story moved inside so did the reporters. They were there to document and thats what they did IMO.

The video from inside the church tells a different story. imo

 

[otto]

Not at all, Fort and Lemon are journalists who were there specifically to cover a story, once that story moved inside so did the reporters. They were there to document and thats what they did IMO.

What story?

The protest organizer stated that the purpose of the protest was to "draw attention", or otherwise inform the congregation, that a member of their church is a federal officer.

Why is that a story for journalists? Unless ... the journalist knew that the organizer planned to enter a church and interfere with a church service. That's a story that might interest an independent NYC journalist!

What was the independent journalist documenting during the scheduled church service when he (and a few protesters) asked the pastor questions?

"We asked Armstrong — who is founder of the Racial Justice Network and a civil rights attorney — to talk about the origins of the protest, and the aftermath.
...

The protest was to draw attention to the fact that a church minister at Cities Church in Saint Paul is affiliated with ICE."

Nekima Levy Armstrong: Why We Protested at Cities Church in Saint Paul, and What Our Arrests Mean

Instead, Armstrong and Allen were taken to the Sherburne County Jail using three sets of restraints “as if we were hardened criminals and murderers. We had ankle shackles on our ankles, we had belly chains around our waist, and we had handcuffs with bars in the middle. As someone who majored in Af

www.womenspress.com

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

But if Don Lemon had been in an alley as you stated above, this wouldn't be an issue. The alley is a public place But he chose to enter into not just a private property, but a legally protected private property, which he KNEW was a church before he entered. And which he CHOSE to stay in after being asked to leave. He meets the elements of the crime he is charged with and will also have to provide testimony against the others.

I thought the church service was open to the public? Aren't people allowed in public areas of a church? I thought I read that somewhere. But also, while journalists are presumably not allowed to trespass, it becomes murky when they're covering news stories. This is why journalists aren't arrested when they stand on private property to cover news stories, such as fires or crime scenes.

I don't believe he meets the elements of the crime, which is why I think two judges refused to sign a warrant for his arrest, IMO.

As for the Society of Professional Journalists, I don't think this means much. Their membership is now only about 4,000. And despite their comments, Lemon in this report violated soooo many of their ethics or code of conduct requirements. Their support is purely political, not professional.

They're in a much better position to judge whether or not he violated journalistic code of ethics, which was the post I'm replying to. Which code of conduct requirements did he violate?

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The independent journalist cites First Amendment rights to enter a church during a scheduled church service to interview the congregation and the pastor. Does the First Amendment give him that right?

Except that isn't what happened at all. That's only what happened in your re-frame, and in the government's spin of what happened. What happened is that a journalist (not sure that repeating the word "independent" over and over again is making any kind of negative point so not sure why it's being repeated), covered a news story that went into a church. The journalist went with them. He covered a news story and maybe even covered a crime, but he covered it, he did not enter the church to interview the congregation.

With regard to what he ACTUALLY did, not the government spin, yes, the First Amendment gives him that right. Full stop.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

What story?

The protest organizer stated that the purpose of the protest was to "draw attention", or otherwise inform the congregation, that a member of their church is a federal officer. Why is that a story for journalists?

Because it's newsworthy? There doesn't have to be hidden motive here. It's a newsworthy story.

Unless ... the journalist knew that the organizer planned to enter a church and interfere with a church service. That's a story that might interest an independent NYC journalist!

That's not true. It was a new angle on an existing story and was fair game for coverage, with or without interrupting a church service.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The video from inside the church tells a different story. imo

How so? What I see is a journalist who put on his journalist hat and began doing what journalists do on the daily, what they are Constitutionally protected to do.

MOO.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Not at all, Fort and Lemon are journalists who were there specifically to cover a story, once that story moved inside so did the reporters. They were there to document and thats what they did IMO.

So, they made a decision to be followers. The "story" was always inside. It's still on them. IMO.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Don Lemon should have left the premises when asked to do so.

He blocks the pastor in, then suddenly gets precious with a whiny “don’t push me.” Please. I’ve been bumped harder blocking an aisle at the grocery store and never thought to play the victim.

imo