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

[Smelly Squirrel]

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

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.

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

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

Well there are plenty of vague allegations in the indictment as well if that's what you mean. But I am asking for specific actions. Like, can you name a timestamp in any video where Lemon violates the FACE Act. And please also explain specifically why that specific act is a violation of a specific part of the FACE Act.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well there are plenty of vague allegations in the indictment as well if that's what you mean. But I am asking for specific actions. Like, can you name a timestamp in any video where Lemon violates the FACE Act. And please also explain specifically why that specific act is a violation of a specific part of the FACE Act.

I do not feel that the indictment is vague.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I do not feel that the indictment is vague.

It isn’t. imo

Someone watching that video, without knowing who Don Lemon is, might think—by his words and actions—that he was participating in the protest rather than reporting on it. imo

 

[SouthAussie]

The difference between a reporter and a protester is the interviewing and documenting.
(See my next post for quote and link)

MAGA calls for Don Lemon to be arrested under FACE Act after Minnesota church protest

Broadcaster sparks outrage with live coverage of anti-ICE demonstration at Cities Church in St Paul as activists interupt service to demand justice over killing of Renee Good

www.independent.co.uk

Google link

 

[Ontario Mom]

The difference between a reporter and a protester is the interviewing.

First, let's be sure to state this is your opinion.

Second, no one in that church was there to be ambush interviewed by Lemon, and no one in that church wanted to be interviewed by Lemon or anyone else. That junk was pushed onto them without their consent. Exactly as it appears to have been planned.

Pastor Parnell was there to preach the Bible, and the worshippers were there to hear it & fellowship with like-minded believers. None of them wanted Lemon and this band of foul mouthed protestors disrupting that service.

jmo

 

[SouthAussie]

"To assume such role, journalists have the right to observe, and by extension monitor, protests, whether violent or not, and to record reactions to protests by officials or other actors. This right is derived from the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, as guaranteed under international human rights law (article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)).

Even if an assembly is declared unlawful or is dispersed, that does not terminate the right of journalists to monitor protests."

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Briefer-Human-Rights-Context-Protests-Journalists.pdf

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I’m curious how others interpret Don Lemon’s attempt to conceal his identity as a journalist even though he’s “supposedly” there in a journalist’s role. In his livestream, he talks about this, while taking off a hat with his name on it and leaving behind a microphone labeled DL. imo

 

[SouthAussie]

"Lemon repeatedly says he is there as a journalist and is unaffiliated with demonstrators.
"We're not part of the activists, but we're here just reporting on them," he says."

Former CNN host Don Lemon faces charges after anti-ICE protest at Minnesota church

Lemon says he was just doing his job as a journalist reporting on the protests at the church.

www.bbc.com

 

[shotgun09]

I’m curious how others interpret Don Lemon’s attempt to conceal his identity as a journalist even though he’s “supposedly” there in a journalist’s role. In his livestream, he talks about this, while taking off a hat with his name on it and leaving behind a microphone labeled DL. imo

Exactly ! DL continuously contradicts himself during his live stream show, before entering the church. As discussed previously with his " I don't think we can go inside, right?....No, no no no..we can stand outside" comment, to one I found rather peculiar today.

This happened at the 25:26 mark on his 1/18 livestream ( linked often here) shortly before entering the church, DL states " IRL" "Off the cuff", " Not produced". "We don't know what's happening....We kinda do, we don't know how it's gonna play out"

Dude is all over the place with uncertainties, but he's goin in ?

Also stated repeatedly during the tailgate/ pre gathering portion of his livestream, he continuously states the reason is to " disrupt". The question of his "how it's gonna play out" , is up to the church members. His job ( Their job...as a group) was to disrupt. And, they did.

IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

In my opinion Don Lemon knew it was something he shouldn’t be doing.

During the livestream, as they arrive at the church, he says -“I don’t think we can go inside, right”? (he answers his own question) “No, no, no, no, no. We can stand outside.”. (23:35)

imo moo

No, he never hints at that he thinks he is doing anything wrong. He's talking about not giving away that the protest is about to happen. That's why they wait to go inside. Everything he says shows he does not consider himself part of the protestors.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Agree, he knew about the FACE Act and decided to violate it in his excitement of the moment. IMO.

Why would he know about the FACE Act? Do you have proof? Probably 90% of the country had never heard of it, and those that had only knew that it applied to abortion clinics. moo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The pressure has not been limited to rhetoric, lawsuits or access restrictions. In recent weeks, a line was crossed that until recently seemed unthinkable in the United States: a search of a journalist’s home. Hannah Natanson, an investigative reporter for The Washington Post, was visited by federal investigators as part of a leak investigation. Her home was searched and her laptops were seized.

The defense motion for grand jury transcripts even mentions this case on page 14:

20 This would not be the first time this Administration failed to accurately state the law as
related to journalistic activities. Less than two weeks ago, DOJ failed to inform a
magistrate judge about a law that prevents the search and seizure of journalistic work
product or documentary materials in its warrant application to search Washington Post
reporter Hannah Natanson’s home, vehicle, and electronics. In re Search of the Real
Property and Premises of Hannah Natanson, No. 26-sw-54, ECF 39 (E.D. Va. Jan. 30,
2026); see Charlie Savage, U.S. Failed to Alert Judge to Press Law in Application to
Search Reporter’s Home, NY Times (Feb. 2, 2026),

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/us/politics/doj-press-law-warrant-applicationwashington-post-journalist.html.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

No, he never hints at that he thinks he is doing anything wrong. He's talking about not giving away that the protest is about to happen. That's why they wait to go inside. Everything he says shows he does not consider himself part of the protestors.

He absolutely does not wait to go inside. (39:00 on livestream) He enters and the pastor is still preaching and does so for 1 minute and 45 seconds before the coordinated attack occurs.

He should have remained outside, just like he said he would. He even admitted he wouldn’t be able to witness the initial impact and seemed disappointed about that. He let his excitement about what was going to happen to those innocent parishioners get the better of him. imo

ETA (in reference to the BBM) - When he walks into the church, who do you think he’s trying to keep the upcoming protests from—the people inside? The victims? That makes it worse. imo.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Watching the Don Lemon Live stream from 1/18, I noticed that post church disruption, DL met with several of the large group of protesters outside of the church. He interviewed some of them, and also said that he would meet up with some later at the Whipple Facility ( where other protests were continuously going on ). What struck me, was the statement made "Live" from DL, and that was " I might get arrested people ". ... " One never knows" ( at 1:22 in DL's livestream from 1/18/26 )
He said this as he was walking back to his car and noticed three Police vehicles on scene parked. Why would he say THAT??

He would say it because you never know who LE will arrest at a protest, even when you do nothing wrong.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Let's start with the fact that the church's doors were open that morning for a specific purpose: Sunday morning worship service.

Was Don Lemon there to worship?
No, he stated clearly that he was there to cover the protest inside the church.
He 100% knew the protestors were going to be inside, and interrupt the church service.
He was present at a meeting where it was layed out exactly how it would happen.

Right then and there, admitting why he was there in the first place he made it perfectly clear he was not inside that church for the stated purpose the church was open, but instead had his own agenda for being there. Once the service was initially interrupted by a protestor, he did in fact participate with the on-going interruption by attempting to "interview" people. The church wasn't open to host random journalists to bombard worshippers with questions about civil rights and the US Constitution, but that's exactly what Lemon was doing.

How anyone can say Lemon wasn't part of the disruption is kind of bizarre to me, since he filmed himself doing it.

jmo

Because protesting and disrupting a church service is not a crime in itself. Nowhere does he indicate he is there to commit a crime nor that he believes the protestors are there to commit a crime.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Even this site has had to put their foot down and determine what they believe to be legitimate media. In essence, they have had to silence and restrict media as well. JMO

A private platform moderating content is legal and is not the same as government suppressing speech.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The defense motion for grand jury transcripts even mentions this case on page 14:

And what law is that?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Because protesting and disrupting a church service is not a crime in itself. Nowhere does he indicate he is there to commit a crime nor that he believes the protestors are there to commit a crime.

Yes it is, when it interferes with the rights of others.

 

[witchway]

dbm

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Why would he know about the FACE Act? Do you have proof? Probably 90% of the country had never heard of it, and those that had only knew that it applied to abortion clinics. moo

Ignorantia juris non excusat.