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

[Ruminations]

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

No, because he does not agree that he did anything illegal.

For that matter, the first two judges who were offered the chance to review the indictment also did not see that Don lemon did the illegal things charged. That is why they rejected the request to grant probable cause for arrest.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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.

Bad analogy. Can he cover a fire? Sure. Can he run a stop sign on the way to cover the fire? No. Do journalistic credentials allow him access to the fire once he's there? Yes, for the most part.

Your analogy of comparing whether he can commit a crime ON THE WAY to the story is not relevant to this case. He did not commit any crime on the way there. Whether or not he committed a crime DURING the coverage is up for debate.

MOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The text posted did not contain that claim.

MOO

Yes it did, and I agree with Prairiewinds assessment.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Bad analogy. Can he cover a fire? Sure. Can he run a stop sign on the way to cover the fire? No. Do journalistic credentials allow him access to the fire once he's there? Yes, for the most part.

Your analogy of comparing whether he can commit a crime ON THE WAY to the story is not relevant to this case. He did not commit any crime on the way there. Whether or not he committed a crime DURING the coverage is up for debate.

MOO.

No, it does not. There are areas cordoned off from the public at fires or crime scenes. The press cannot get past those.

A journalist cannot engage in illegal activity while "doing journalism" and claim that he is exempt from that law.

MOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No, because he does not agree that he did anything illegal.

For that matter, the first two judges who were offered the chance to review the indictment also did not see that Don lemon did the illegal things charged. That is why they rejected the request to grant probable cause for arrest.

MOO

He is not saying that anyone could do what he did and face no penalty. Lemon is not claiming there was no crime.

 

[SouthAussie]

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.

At the most, Don may have been trespassing in the church. A charge that has not been laid, at this point in time.

imo

 

[J. J. in Phila]

At the most, Don was trespassing in the church.

imo

The trespassing is a violation of the FACE Act. It, like a clinic invasion, intimidates.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

No, it does not. There are areas cordoned off from the public at fires or crime scenes. The press cannot get past those.

A journalist cannot engage in illegal activity while "doing journalism" and claim that he is exempt from that law.

MOO.

This journalist appears not to have engaged in illegal activity. If it goes to court, prosecutors can try to prove he did, but I don't see it on the videos I have seen.

You keep bringing in examples of things for which Lemon is not accused.

He is not accused of crossing into cordoned off areas. Why even bring that up?

He is accused of violating the FACE act, and the facts do not support that accusation according to two judges who were asked to grant the Feds the authority to arrest Lemon.

Lemon is not saying he is allowed to do illegal things. He is saying he didn't do illegal things.

MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

The trespassing is a violation of the FACE Act. It, like a clinic invasion, intimidates.

MOO

There are more components to the FACE Act. Ones that seemingly do not apply (according to video footage).

imo

 

[tricia]

You said "
J. J. in Phila said:
Yes he is, if he claims he is not guilty because he is a journalist. MOO.
The reason I asked for the link is that I read your statement to mean Don Lemon admitted to being a part of the protest, but he is not guilty because he is a journalist.
That is not the case at all.
Lemon has never admitted to being a part of the protest that I know of, and hence the request for the link.
What I last remember reading (about two weeks ago) was that Don Lemon said he was there not as a participant but as a journalist. He was not participating. He was reporting. That is very different than saying he was participating, but he is not guilty because he is a journalist, which is how I read your statement.
Tricia

 

[Hexe]

Yes it did, and I agree with Prairiewinds assessment.

No. That's just your interpretation of his words, which boils down to the fact he used the word "journalist". Well, it so happens Lemon is a journalist. That's his profession. If he was performing said profession in that church, tell me please, how should he describe it? How else but "I was there as a journalist" (as opposed, by the way, to being there as a protester or as a criminal)?

Again, Lemon does not say, anywhere, that he can commit crimes because he is a journo. He says he is not guilty, because he did not commit any crime. He was there as a journalist, not as a protester, not as a criminal. That's what he says. He says also that he shouldn't be arrested for doing his job because the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press.

Saying he claims impunity, because he says he was in that church as a journo is, IMO, a massive, massive overreach that does not have sny foundation in what Don Lemon actually said.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This journalist appears not to have engaged in illegal activity. If it goes to court, prosecutors can try to prove he did, but I don't see it on the videos I have seen.

You keep bringing in examples of things for which Lemon is not accused.

He is not accused of crossing into cordoned off areas. Why even bring that up?

He is accused of violating the FACE act, and the facts do not support that accusation according to two judges who were asked to grant the Feds the authority to arrest Lemon.

Lemon is not saying he is allowed to do illegal things. He is saying he didn't do illegal things.

MOO

Because, under FACE, it is cordoned area. If he were to follow a group of anti-abortion activists into a clinic, it would be the ame situation.

 

[Hexe]

A journalist cannot engage in illegal activity while "doing journalism" and claim that he is exempt from that law.

Which is not what Lemon claimed.

 

[Ruminations]

He is not saying that anyone could do what he did and face no penalty. Lemon is not claiming there was no crime.

Yes, he is saying that anyone could do what he did and face no penalty.

He went in. He asked questions. He held doors.

He did not violate the FACE act.

Do you think two judges called it wrong when they asked for more information than that affidavit and the videos that failed to support it? The judges said, I don't see what is alleged in the affidavit on video.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You said "
J. J. in Phila said:
Yes he is, if he claims he is not guilty because he is a journalist. MOO.
The reason I asked for the link is that I read your statement to mean Don Lemon admitted to being a part of the protest, but he is not guilty because he is a journalist.
That is not the case at all.
Lemon has never admitted to being a part of the protest that I know of, and hence the request for the link.
What I last remember reading (about two weeks ago) was that Don Lemon said he was there not as a participant but as a journalist. He was not participating. He was reporting. That is very different than saying he was participating, but he is not guilty because he is a journalist, which is how I read your statement.
Tricia

He did enter with them and knew that there would be some action. I believe that was in the livestream. Should he have known of something improper when he entered

He cannot use the argument that being a journalist gave him the ability to be there, after being asked to leave.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Which is not what Lemon claimed.

Right now, that is questionable. He knew that an action was to take place and refused to leave when asked.

 

[Ruminations]

At the most, Don may have been trespassing in the church. A charge that has not been laid, at this point in time.

imo

And it's a tough one, too, on a first visit to a place open to the public. If they were told don't come back and did, I'm sure they would be arrested.

But trespassing for these defendants on one, rude visit still would have better odds than the FACE act.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And it's a tough one, too, on a first visit to a place open to the public. If they were told don't come back and did, I'm sure they would be arrested.

But trespassing for these defendants on one, rude visit still would have better odds than the FACE act.

MOO

Lemon was asked to leave. If it is a protected area under the FACE Act, that is where he runs into a problem.

IMO

I will ask this rhetorical question. If a reporter, with a conservative bent, followed a group of protestors into an abortion clinic, filmed them, and refused to leave, would you still feel the same way?

 

[Ruminations]

He did enter with them and knew that there would be some action. I believe that was in the livestream. Should he have known of something improper when he entered

He cannot use the argument that being a journalist gave him the ability to be there, after being asked to leave.

So what if he thought there would be some kind of action?

Reporting on an action is not a crime.

I think it is pretty clear, as he brought a videographer, that he thought something would go down that might be a story.

He was doing journalism. And journalism is not a crime.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So what if he thought there would be some kind of action?

Reporting on an action is not a crime.

I think it is pretty clear, as he brought a videographer, that he thought something would go down that might be a story.

He was doing journalism. And journalism is not a crime.

MOO

Entering a protected area is. Staying after being asked to leave is. MOO.