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

[J. J. in Phila]

Not analogous. Not current. A deflection.

MOO

Within the last 14 months makes it current.

The fact that someone was pardon on tax and weapons charges does not preclude others from being charged with either crime. The entire matter of the pardons in the abortion clinic case is not current, irrelevant and immaterial to the Lemon case. If fact, it is a deflection.

I, however, was not the one who brought it up.

MOO.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

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.

I should have read ahead before I replied lol, you said it better

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Something paramount to consider when discussing the law here, is that what the FACE Act prohibits is anyone who:

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;​

But the bolded terms are not meant by their colloquial, everyday meanings, they are specifically defined within the act as:

(2)Interfere with.—
The term “interfere with” means to restrict a person’s freedom of movement.
(3)Intimidate.—
The term “intimidate” means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.
(4)Physical obstruction.—
The term “physical obstruction” means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.

18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Snipped for emphasis.

Lemon was unlawfully in the church, being part of the disruption. No one can do that, including a journalist.

As for an attack on journalists, what attack?

IMO.

It’s very clear to me that Lemon was part of the disruption. In his livestream he discussed removing his Don Lemon hat so as not to tip the parishioners off. imo moo Why not leave that on to show you’re there in a journalist’s capacity? Hmmm… imo moo

 

[Rolypolyoly]

The reporter is driving to a fire. He runs the stop sign, so he can get there to quickly cover the story.

Lemon entered the church knowing that there would be some action taking place inside. MOO.

Of course he did, thats literally his job! He knew there was going to be a protest and he went there to cover it, the protesters entered the church so Lemon followed them to report live. That isnt a crime. Knowing something is going to happen, but not exactly what, isnt a crime and neither is reporting on an event as it plays out.

 

[Ruminations]

Snipped for emphasis.

Lemon was unlawfully in the church, being part of the disruption. No one can do that, including a journalist.

As for an attack on journalists, what attack?

IMO.

Judges who reviewed the evidence saw no wrong doing by lemon.

No wrongdoing suggests malicious indictments. Malicious indictments that target journalists are attacks on journalists.

It's not hard to follow.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Of course he did, thats literally his job! He knew there was going to be a protest and he went there to cover it, the protesters entered the church so Lemon followed them to report live. That isnt a crime. Knowing something is going to happen, but not exactly what, isnt a crime and neither is reporting on an event as it plays out.

That is a violation of the FACE Act and a crime, jut like we saw with the abortion protesters case, previously cited.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

The reporter is driving to a fire. He runs the stop sign, so he can get there to quickly cover the story.

Lemon entered the church knowing that there would be some action taking place inside. MOO.

Don lemon is not charged with running a stop sign.

There is nothing wrong with knowing there would be an action, there is nothing wrong with lawfully covering it as a journalist.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Judges who reviewed the evidence saw no wrong doing by lemon.

No wrongdoing suggests malicious indictments. Malicious indictments that target journalists are attacks on journalists.

It's not hard to follow.

MOO

The grand jury, which may have had more time and more evidence, found that evidence.

MOO.

What other journalists have been targeted?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Don lemon is not charged with running a stop sign.

There is nothing wrong with knowing there would be an action, there is nothing wrong with lawfully covering it as a journalist.

MOO

There is something wrong with violating the law while covering it.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

RBBMFF

In my opinion Don Lemon knew it was not a good idea to enter the church, but he did it anyway. He was practically vibrating with excitement, like a kid on Christmas morning.

imo

Okay.

It was not a "good idea." In your opinion.

But, according to two judges so far, he didn't appear to break any laws.

MOO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

That is a violation of the FACE Act and a crime, jut like we saw with the abortion protesters case, previously cited.

MOO

Please identify what specific act or acts by Lemon violated what specific part of the FACE Act, and explain why.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Please identify what specific act or acts by Lemon violated what specific part of the FACE Act, and explain why.

I already have. Refusing to leave and disrupting the service.

MOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay.

It was not a "good idea." In your opinion.

But, according to two judges so far, he didn't appear to break any laws.

MOO

But, according to a grand jury, it did. The difference is, they probably had more time and more evidence.

IMO.

 

[Ruminations]

That is a violation of the FACE Act and a crime, jut like we saw with the abortion protesters case, previously cited.

MOO

Those protesters were pardoned by this administration. That shows this administration may be using the statute maliciously, rather than idealistically.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

There is something wrong with violating the law while covering it.

MOO

He asserts he did not break any laws, and I agree.

Two judges agreed.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Those protesters were pardoned by this administration. That shows they are using the statute maliciously.

MOO

And?

That makes no difference, as already shown with the other pardon cited.

I would doubt that the pardon is even admissible.

MOO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I already have. Refusing to leave and disrupting the service.

MOO.

That's not close to providing any specific acts or law.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He asserts he did not break any laws, and I agree.

Two judges agreed.

MOO

The two judges are not the issue.

A grand jury determined it.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That's not close to providing any specific acts or law.

Yes, it is, and that is included in the indictment. IMO.