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

[Hexe]

It shows that the courts are very skeptical of claims that journalists do not have to follow the law in being journalists.

MOO

Who made that claim in the Lemon's case?

 

[PrairieWind]

Who made that claim in the Lemon's case?

Isn't that what his defense is going to be? No question he was trespassing. No question he was disrupting the church service intentionally. He is claiming, "Well, I'm a journalist, so ....."

 

[Sundog]

So we can count that as another expert attorney who favors Lemon's position.

Attorneys don't necessarily take a case because they favor a defendant's position, but often for other reasons. This guy likely would enjoy a case that pits him against his former employer as he resigned because he didn't want to work with them. Also, his newly-established business could use the publicity of a high profile case, I am sure.

imo

 

[Sundog]

It may be and it may no be. That is why I'm asking the question.

He many have not been there, but 5-6 days is not a big gap.

MOO.

That's a good point. Often government employees use up some, or all, of their vacation days when they leave a position and so the actual resignation date is a few weeks or even a month or more beyond their departure date. This is common for senior government officials in my experience. The "resigned date" is not necessarily the "resignation effective date" of termination of the position.

 

[Sundog]

They may be paid for two weeks after, but their resignation is effective immediately.
The employer doesn't want a disagreeing worker in their midst. Pay them out, let them go.

That may be how it works in the private sector in many cases, but this is federal employment and things don't work the same way. A senior employee often has accumulated up to six months of vacation, lots of sick days (could be up to 3 years in some cases), etc. He could have cashed out on all of this in a lump sum, or he could have taken a few weeks to transition into another health care plan, etc. after losing his federal government benefits. It can vary tremendously among senior employees, all from my experience. It is in no way similar to the private sector, there are all kinds of termination agreements. We don't know the details of his. I doubt his last day in the office was the effective termination date, even if his office was physically vacated immediately.

JMO and experience

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Isn't that what his defense is going to be? No question he was trespassing. No question he was disrupting the church service intentionally. He is claiming, "Well, I'm a journalist, so ....."

He isnt charged with trespassing, and he didnt disrupt the service so I would imagine that is where his defence might start

 

[Sundog]

It won't be up to me. but up to the prosecution. It is a question of timing and involvement.

IMO

I agree, the prosecution will know if there is a conflict of interest.

 

[Ruminations]

Isn't that what his defense is going to be? No question he was trespassing. No question he was disrupting the church service intentionally. He is claiming, "Well, I'm a journalist, so ....."

Oh, no.


I think you are a little confused.

Nobody was charged with trespassing. So, there is question.

Second, Lemon is not "claiming" he is a journalist. He is a journalist. He was doing journalism on that Sunday.

He was not disrupting a church service intentionally. There is no question that he was NOT disrupting a church service intentionally. He was covering a disruption as a journalist.



MOO

 

[Ruminations]

I agree, the prosecution will know if there is a conflict of interest.

It's not up to the prosecution. They are a side.

It is up to a judge.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

It shows that the courts are very skeptical of claims that journalists do not have to follow the law in being journalists.

MOO

I think the crucial point you are missing is that Lemon was following the law in just about everyone's opinion.

Fair to point out that he is charged with violating the FACE act, but the charges are weak.

Pointing out irrelevant court cases does not make the case stronger. If the prosecution tries this, should the case go to trial, it will make the prosecution look even more ridiculous than it does now.

And it does look ridiculous, having been over-eagerly charged, having had bringing the charges rejected by two judges, having released an affidavit filled with emotional hearsay anecdotes instead of facts, having the emotional anecdotes contradicted by video evidence, having the charges based on violating an act the administration bringing the charges wants to gut, and having already had most legal analysts give the case very poor odds.


MOO