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

[SouthAussie]

I really don't know how this is applicable. The fact that the protestors are ready to justify their actions does not latter. What matters is whether or not they violated the FACE act. Likewise, the fact that the protesters deem the Pastor to be "uncool" is also a non starter.

My post was in response to your comment ... a weak point might be the videographer.

From what I posted, it appears that Jerome has publicly substantiated that Don was there to report on the activist activities.

imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Slippery slope now. Who are "journalists"? Are they credentialed, working for a legitimate news agency? Or can anyone claim to be an "independent" journalist? As we have so many social media sites, with self appointed journalists.

I know you haven't been reading the thread consistently, but Tricia piped in pages ago and said that the topic of whether or not Don Lemon is a journalist is off-limits. He has been a professional journalist for 20+ years, has been educated as a journalist (has a degree in journalism), worked professionally and as a credentialed journalist.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Nowhere in that text Lemon says he is not guilty, because he is a journalist. He says he was acting as a journalist, documenting the protest. That's a huge difference.

That presumes that acting as a journalist provides immunity for otherwise illegal actions.

 

[PrairieWind]

Nowhere in that text Lemon says he is not guilty, because he is a journalist. He says he was acting as a journalist, documenting the protest. That's a huge difference.

"
Following his arraignment, Lemon told reporters the case reflects what he views as a troubling trend toward targeting journalists for doing their jobs.

“This isn’t just about me. This is about all journalists, especially here in the United States,” he said. “For more than 30 years I’ve been a journalist, and the First Amendment has been the underpinning of my work.”

Are you saying he is NOT claiming journalism as a defense? If you are, you are not being very honest.

 

[Hexe]

That presumes that acting as a journalist provides immunity for otherwise illegal actions.

No it does not. It describes what Lemon was doing in that church.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No it does not. It describes what Lemon was doing in that church.

MOO

Then he is claiming a privilege.

IMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

I know you haven't been reading the thread consistently, but Tricia piped in pages ago and said that the topic of whether or not Don Lemon is a journalist is off-limits. He has been a professional journalist for 20+ years, has been educated as a journalist (has a degree in journalism), worked professionally and as a credentialed journalist.

Whether Don is a journalist is no longer in question. I think it is established that he is. The question remains is whether that gives him any immunity or privilege for his actions that would otherwise be criminal acts. Stop confusing the two questions.

 

[Hexe]

Are you saying he is NOT claiming journalism as a defense? If you are, you are not being very honest.

I am saying, again, that he never said he can commit crimes without punishment, because he is a journalist. I am saying that he pointed out in that speech after he left the court that by charging him and other journalists the federal govt is trying to intimidate the medis to make them stop reporting what the govt does not want. Like the situation in Minnesota. I am also saying Lemon is trying to warn the public it is very dangerous situation and he does not intend to keep silent.

That's what I am saying. I hope this clears things out.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I agree on the lead statement. But.... we have very different views regarding the rest of your post.

The FACE Act clearly states that it is illegal intimidate people at a place of worship from practicing first amendment rights- period.

Neither the ACLU nor the SPLC, nor any other established civil liberties group has questioned the applicability of the charges to the protesters. That is pretty telling and could well indicate that they are in big trouble.

How did Lemon intimidate people at a place of worship from practicing their first amendment rights?

Then factor in the idea that people have protest rights, but need to stay out of churches, mosques, synagogues and temples might resonate pretty deep with a certain number of jurors.

In regards to the charges against Lemon, I think he is going to get squeezed, but I my confidence is lower. Two judges refused to issue warrants. Yet, neither judge rejected the applicability of the charges out right.

I don't know what the bolded means? Of course they rejected the applicability of the charges outright. That was why they didn't issue the warrants.

In the end, the fact that the protest and target were plastered all over Minneapolis, but none of the big boy networks decided to respond to: "Hey CNN, FOX and CBS wanna get the inside scoop on our protest at the Church? We are rolling out soon!!" could be telling. Little voices might have told them it was legally a bad idea.

I don't think that's a sound argument. Freelance journalists often cover stories others pass on. There are all kinds of reasons other journalists chose not to cover this story and I doubt that will play any role in court.

As to the loyalty of the protesters to their cause and to each other. Humans and humans and groups of humans usually fragment. Not all of them might have signed up for the risk of criminal charges.

All the above MOO.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Isn't it usually the defense team that tries to leak evidence in pretrial when they have a weak case (e.g. Richard Allen's attorneys)? ICBW, but usually the prosecution isn't attempting to "try their case in the news media" before the trial begins. Will the defense team have to ask the judge to issue a gag order?

Maybe. Another atypical behavior would be that the prosecution wants to designate the case complex which would slow some things down, while defense opposes doing so. Usually it's the defense trying to slow things down when they is a good case against them. This is another sign that prosecutors brought the case for political and punitive purposes and not because they expect to win. moo

The complex case issue and others are discussed in the video below from Lawfare starting at 21 minutes till 39 minutes. Starts at 21 minutes with their reporter who was at the arraignment and describes what happened there. The rest of the video is about other current DOJ cases with similar irregularities.

 

[Hexe]

Then he is claiming a privilege.

IMO.

By describing that all he did in church was doing his job as a journo?

 

[Hexe]

Whether Don is a journalist is no longer in question. I think it is established that he is. The question remains is whether that gives him any immunity or privilege for his actions that would otherwise be criminal acts. Stop confusing the two questions.

He never claimed any immunity or privilege.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Then he is claiming a privilege.

IMO.

No. Stating a fact is not claiming a privilege.

It is stating a fact.

A fact which is supported by the evidence, in this example.

In contrast, the indictment alleges behaviors that are not supported by the evidence.

Going to court and testifying that, rather than doing what I was accused of doing, I was doing [X] is disagreeing with the allegations and filling in facts. It is not claiming a privilege.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Whether Don is a journalist is no longer in question. I think it is established that he is. The question remains is whether that gives him any immunity or privilege for his actions that would otherwise be criminal acts. Stop confusing the two questions.

I didn't confuse anything. The poster asked what makes a journalist, and that particular question is no longer up for discussion. What about that means I'm confusing the two questions?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

By describing that all he did in church was doing his job as a journo?

He is claiming that because he is a journalist, his actions there cannot be illegal.

Can a journalist cover a fire? Sure. Can he run stop sign on the way their and get out of a ticked because he was doing journalism? Nope.

IMO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No. Stating a fact is not claiming a privilege.

It is stating a fact.

A fact which is supported by the evidence, in this example.

In contrast, the indictment alleges behaviors that are not supported by the evidence.

Going to court and testifying that, rather than doing what I was accused of doing, I was doing [X] is disagreeing with the allegations and filling in facts. It is not claiming a privilege.

MOO

Lemon is basically claiming that what he did is not illegal, because he is a journalist.

MOO

 

[Hexe]

He is claiming that because he is a journalist, his actions there cannot be illegal.

Provide me an exact quote with that claim.

 

[Hexe]

Lemon is basically claiming that what he did is not illegal, because he is a journalist.

MOO

No. He does not.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Provide me an exact quote with that claim.

It was posted within the last 20 minutes, and in response to one of your posts.

MOO

 

[Hexe]

It was posted within the last 20 minutes, and in response to one of your posts.

MOO

The text posted did not contain that claim.

MOO