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

[witchway]

This kind of civil lawsuit would have nothing to do with freedom of the press. Journalists are held accountable for their actions just as other citizens are. Lots of lawsuits have been brought against journalists and/or their employers and these civil lawsuits are important to protect those harmed in various ways. I think we will see more lawsuits like this be filed against all the people who stormed the church and harmed congregants while violated their civil rights.

Correct, let’s get those 2 journalists that were reporting on a protest against the director of ice where Renee Good was killed just weeks earlier. Forget about what the protest was about. <modsnip> keep those pesky journalists out. Nothing to see here. JMO

 

[sds71]

A judge has rejected the Trump administration's bid to delay Don Lemon's case after the journalist was hit with federal civil rights charges over his coverage of an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protest at a Minnesota church.

According to a court order reviewed by Newsweek, U.S. Magistrate Douglas Micko on Monday rejected the government's motion to designate the case as complex under the Speedy Trial Act and allow a three-month extension for discovery obligations.

However, the judge agreed that more time was justified because of the volume of material involved, extending the government's deadline for disclosures by 30 days.

Don Lemon scores legal win in church protest case

Lemon was hit with federal civil rights charges over his coverage of an anti-ICE protest at a Minnesota church.

www.newsweek.com

Philadelphia City Council recognizes Temple student charged alongside Don Lemon after Minnesota ICE protest

Jerome Richardson, a Minnesota native, said he helped Lemon coordinate coverage of a protest at a St. Paul church last month.

www.cbsnews.com

Philly student arrested after covering Minnesota protest with Don Lemon recognized by City Council

Temple University student Jerome Richardson was indicted with journalist Don Lemon and several others after helping Lemon cover an anti-ICE protest at the Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Richardson was recognized by Philadelphia City Council on Thursday.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[SouthAussie]

Correct, let’s get those 2 journalists that were reporting on a protest against the director of ice where Renee Good was killed just weeks earlier. Forget about what the protest was about. <modsnip> keep those pesky journalists out. Nothing to see here. JMO

My feeling is that she probably lumped Don in with the protesters in her lawsuit not because she was scared of him standing there reporting on the protest, but more because he is likely the one with the most assets to sue for.

imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

This kind of civil lawsuit would have nothing to do with freedom of the press. Journalists are held accountable for their actions just as other citizens are. Lots of lawsuits have been brought against journalists and/or their employers and these civil lawsuits are important to protect those harmed in various ways. I think we will see more lawsuits like this be filed against all the people who stormed the church and harmed congregants while violating their civil rights.

I think it has a lot to do with freedom of the press. It guarantees that the right of the press to gather news. Take out the criminal side of it since that isn't necessary for a civil lawsuit to proceed. If someone can claim a reporter's gathering or filming of news events was traumatizing because the news event itself was traumatizing, it would set a very dangerous precedent.

Also, I'd be curious how their entering of the church caused such severe distress that they could sue for it. I'm sure it was upsetting, but I believe there's a legal bar they have to hit to prove intentional infliction of distress and win a civil lawsuit. I'm just not sure I'd see that as it applies to DL.

 

[SouthAussie]

I have been doing a bit of reading about the first amendment clause that guarantees freedom of the press.

This case law may apply in this case, as the ICE director/pastor is a public official.

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), in which the court held the press is largely free from any adverse act or court action if it attempts truthfully to report news of public concern; and when the news involves a public official, even erroneous reportage has a high degree of protection.

Freedom of the press

Freedom of the press protects the right to gather information and report it to others. This vital freedom helps protect democracy.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

 

[Ontario Mom]

Also, I'd be curious how their entering of the church caused such severe distress that they could sue for it. I'm sure it was upsetting, but I believe there's a legal bar they have to hit to prove intentional infliction of distress and win a civil lawsuit. I'm just not sure I'd see that as it applies to DL.

<RSBM>

I can only speak for myself, but as someone that regularly attends worship service in my church, and who regularly sees mass shootings of innocent civilians all over the news (how many times do we see another one, and another post goes up, and someone comments "here we go again?" It's that common now), if that sort of loud, disruptive group of people entered that would be one of my first thoughts, and worst fear. Especially as I sit next to several of my grandkids. To say it would be upsetting or distressing is an extreme understatement, IMO.

My guess would be, any person in any mosque, synagogue, temple or any other sacred space of worship might feel the same way.

jmo

 

[PrairieWind]

I think it has a lot to do with freedom of the press. It guarantees that the right of the press to gather news. Take out the criminal side of it since that isn't necessary for a civil lawsuit to proceed. If someone can claim a reporter's gathering or filming of news events was traumatizing because the news event itself was traumatizing, it would set a very dangerous precedent.

Also, I'd be curious how their entering of the church caused such severe distress that they could sue for it. I'm sure it was upsetting, but I believe there's a legal bar they have to hit to prove intentional infliction of distress and win a civil lawsuit. I'm just not sure I'd see that as it applies to DL.

The point is, that just because some is a journalist, they are not immune from actual crimes they commit nor do they have any civil immunity from damages that they may inflict on another. What happened to the "no one is above the law" argument?

 

[SouthAussie]

Here is a photo of the congregation during the protest. Most of them seem to be standing around and some perhaps leaving through an open side door. Some standing with hands in pockets. Someone filming with their phone.

Evidently any fear (at least for those standing with their hands in their pockets) had passed by this point. imo

Cities Church Considers Legal Options After Sunday Protest - MinistryWatch

Leaders of Cities Church, the Minneapolis congregation whose worship service was disrupted by anti-ICE protesters, are considering legal action against the activists.

ministrywatch.com

 

[Sundog]

Here is a photo of the congregation during the protest. Most of them seem to be standing around and some perhaps leaving through an open side door. Some standing with hands in pockets. Someone filming with their phone.

Evidently any fear (at least for those standing with their hands in their pockets) had passed by this point. imo

View attachment 648613

Cities Church Considers Legal Options After Sunday Protest - MinistryWatch

Leaders of Cities Church, the Minneapolis congregation whose worship service was disrupted by anti-ICE protesters, are considering legal action against the activists.

ministrywatch.com

Anyone who saw the look on the Pastor's face would know that fear was prominent in the moments of the protest, he was searching the pews and couldn't see his wife and children. And some of the children reported when they got out of the church that they thought they were going to be shot with all the chanting about shooting by the protesters. It won't be hard for any reasonable person on a jury to understand the fear and trauma that these congregants faced as they were worshipping in their church that Sunday and were set upon by this mob of protesters.

 

[SouthAussie]

Anyone who saw the look on the Pastor's face would know that fear was prominent in the moments of the protest, he was searching the pews and couldn't see his wife and children. And some of the children reported when they got out of the church that they thought they were going to be shot with all the chanting about shooting by the protesters. It won't be hard for any reasonable person on a jury to understand the fear and trauma that these congregants faced as they were worshipping in their church that Sunday and were set upon by this mob of protesters.

The protesters chants were "Renee Good. Don't shoot".

I get that the children might have been scared hearing the words "don't shoot" from the protesters. One would hope that their parents reassured them that no-one was shooting, just protesting.

I have asked for permission to post a video that clearly shows what was happening. Will see if I get mod approval.

imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

<RSBM>

I can only speak for myself, but as someone that regularly attends worship service in my church, and who regularly sees mass shootings of innocent civilians all over the news (how many times do we see another one, and another post goes up, and someone comments "here we go again?" It's that common now), if that sort of loud, disruptive group of people entered that would be one of my first thoughts, and worst fear. Especially as I sit next to several of my grandkids. To say it would be upsetting or distressing is an extreme understatement, IMO.

My guess would be, any person in any mosque, synagogue, temple or any other sacred space of worship might feel the same way.

jmo

But I'm not sure if that's a legally sound argument, especially as it pertains to DL. If he'd barged in threatening people or barged in saying something threatening/intimidating, maybe. But the noise of protestors themselves and DL following them in doesn't really pass muster as far as civil litigation goes, IMO. Granted, I'm not an attorney and there are more facts that still need to come out, but if they win this thing, I think it sets a precedent for everyone to claim legally sound emotional distress when anyone disrupts anything, and I'm not sure that's a good use of our court system.

MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Okay, I have been advised by a staff member that I can post the video and alert. Which I will do.
This video was posted on Instagram by "Dr McCarty Is An American Life Coach, Author, Self-Help Guru, Life Strategist, & Inspirational Speaker".

I haven't yet noticed Don Lemon anywhere among the protesters.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The point is, that just because some is a journalist, they are not immune from actual crimes they commit nor do they have any civil immunity from damages that they may inflict on another. What happened to the "no one is above the law" argument?

Well, I mean, some people do seem to be above the law, but I digress. The point is that while journalists are not "immune" from actual crimes, the Constitution does give them a lot of leeway in covering the news. Think about the Pentagon Papers. The federal government lost that case because freedom of the press was upheld by the courts, even though a case could be made that the journalists involved broke laws in obtaining and publication.

MOO.

 

[CrimeDawg123]

Okay, I have been advised by a staff member to post the video and alert. Which I will do.
This video was posted on Instagram by "Dr McCarty Is An American Life Coach, Author, Self-Help Guru, Life Strategist, & Inspirational Speaker".

I haven't yet noticed Don Lemon anywhere among the protesters.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Thanks for posting. Not exactly what you'd call intimidating.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Anyone who saw the look on the Pastor's face would know that fear was prominent in the moments of the protest, he was searching the pews and couldn't see his wife and children. And some of the children reported when they got out of the church that they thought they were going to be shot with all the chanting about shooting by the protesters. It won't be hard for any reasonable person on a jury to understand the fear and trauma that these congregants faced as they were worshipping in their church that Sunday and were set upon by this mob of protesters.

Ok, but then where does it end? Can the citizens of Minnesota sue the government for inflicting trauma on them through ICE's actions in the city of Minneapolis? Can other cities sue the government? Can people on a plane sue an unruly passenger because it's scary? Can people in a theater sue the drunk guy who disrupted a movie? At some point, we have to hold people accountable for breaking laws (the protestors who allegedly violated the FACE Act) without holding them accountable for our reaction to it, in the absence of actual physical or psychological violence (i.e. threats, weapons, etc).

MOO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Well, I mean, some people do seem to be above the law, but I digress. The point is that while journalists are not "immune" from actual crimes, the Constitution does give them a lot of leeway in covering the news. Think about the Pentagon Papers. The federal government lost that case because freedom of the press was upheld by the courts, even though a case could be made that the journalists involved broke laws in obtaining and publication.

MOO.

But a group of people could enter a mosque, with their cameras/phones held up, asking questions, but totally disrupting and stopping the prayers, stopping worship, and claim they are just covering a story and there is nothing can be done. Right?

 

[SouthAussie]

But a group of people could enter a mosque, with their cameras/phones held up, asking questions, but totally disrupting and stopping the prayers, stopping worship, and claim they are just covering a story and there is nothing can be done. Right?

AFAIK protesters can be (and evidently are) charged for entering a place of religious worship and causing disruption through specified means.

The question is were Don and Georgia acting as protesters or reporters? And, in being reporters, are they protected by the freedom of the press clause in the first amendment?

imo

 

[witchway]

AFAIK protesters can be (and evidently are) charged for entering a place of religious worship and causing disruption through specified means.

The question is were Don and Georgia acting as protesters or reporters? And, in being reporters, are they protected by the freedom of the press clause in the first amendment?

imo

Both videos posted by @CrimeDawg123 and @SouthAussie I see no presence of Don Lemon or Georgia Fort in any way shape or form protesting with the protestors. Also, I see plenty of church goers calmly sitting and praying. I do not see a shred of fear exhibited by anyone. I have seen worse protests at Nordstroms over the annual shoe sale. IMO

 

[iamshadow21]

Both videos posted by @CrimeDawg123 and @SouthAussie I see no presence of Don Lemon or Georgia Fort in any way shape or form protesting with the protestors. Also, I see plenty of church goers calmly sitting and praying. I do not see a shred of fear exhibited by anyone. I have seen worse protests at Nordstroms over the annual shoe sale.

Having worked retail, I agree. Big sales, customers are monsters. We had one customer run down another with her trolley (shopping cart) one year when we opened the doors. I think the victim needed stitches. Fist fights, people snatching things from others, shoving people down, even if they're kids and the elderly.

This is nothing like that. It's not polite, but it's certainly not a 'riot'.

MOO

 

[witchway]

dbm