I’m curious to know what Lemon meant when he said, “So that’s what we’re doing here, and after we do this operation, you’ll see it live, these operations are surprise operations… “ That makes me wonder in what capacity he was involved. That does not sound like the language of a neutral observer. It sounds like he’s part of the “we” which is the activist group. “After we do this operation.” I’d like to hear what Lemon knew and when he knew it. “The operation” involved disrupting church services. Are we to believe a journalist who worked at CNN is not aware peaceful protest and disrupting a church service are not the same? Lemon also made statements on a podcast after the event that raised eyebrows, potentially indicating motive, which you do not report on here. Those statements could have been presented to the grand jury, which may have impacted their decision.
He said a lot of things that put reasonable doubt that he was some kind of neutral observer. I believe he also stated before hand he was getting in on some kind of "secret operation". I think he tried to present it as such but it just seems highly doubtful.
I'm tracking that by the effective of Lemon's own videos he was actively involved in planning this illegal activity, that he included himself among the "protestors", and that he engaged in illegal "protest" inside the church. In short, he knowingly conspired to commit a premeditated illegal act as part of an organized group. He's every bit as guilty as any of them. Filming yourself committing the crime is NOT a "get out of jail free card".
Thanks for your comment. I fully agree that filming yourself committing a crime is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And journalists do not have special immunity from the laws we all have to obey. But I don't believe the publicly available video evidence shows Lemon engaged in conduct that would satisfy the elements of the serious federal charges he’s facing under the FACE Act or 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Lemon clearly knew in advance that protesters were planning "an operation" and he was plainly sympathetic to their cause. But advance knowledge of the event and an intention to report on it are not the same as an advance agreement to use force, make threats, or physically obstruct ingress or egress at a house of worship to interfere with others' exercise of religious freedom.
During the protest itself, Lemon largely stood off to the side, did not chant or shout, did not threaten anyone, and did not appear to physically block anyone's movement. He interviewed congregants and protesters and, at times, became argumentative. But to my eye, people remained free to decline interviews, end conversations, and walk away, as some did. At most, the facts suggest a possible misdemeanor trespass issue after the pastor said he'd like Lemon to leave and he continued interviewing others instead of immediately exiting. That is a far cry from the major federal charges the government brought — charges that require proof of threats, force, physical obstruction, or coordinated agreement to engage in such conduct.
None of this is to say Lemon's conduct was praiseworthy or to suggest it is beyond criticism or even fully legal — only that the serious federal charges he's facing deserve heavy skepticism. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that two judges found the government's evidence is too weak to even justify a trial.
I have a different take. I think this is the perfect case, and I think it comes at a great time. Now, I do agree the reasons appear to be bad, by which I mean politically motivated. Nevertheless, I would like to see the courts rule on this event, not have it thrown out. Specifically, I would appreciate a ruling that clarifies the difference between action as a journalist and as an activist or protestor. In 2024 and 2025 several rulings clarified the relationship between government officials use of personal vs official social media channels. So now we have a scenario that can do the same for journalists and activists.
The fact that people disagree so much on whether he was acting as a journalist or as one of the activists/protestors is exactly why I think this is a good case. Again, I don't like that it appears to be politically motivated, but I will take the silver lining. If it really was crystal clear one way or the other, then call it a witch hunt, or the process is the punishment, and kick it out. This doesn't seem to be that clear to me. Especially his use of "we".
I don't know if I will agree with the rulings, because I don't know enough to predict them. But I would like them to exist one way or another.
Courts have already ruled on similar situations, so there is some precedence. They key problem with this protest was the Church.
Mckesson v. Doe ruled that a protest organizer cannot be held liable for actions of other protestors. In other words, someone speaking for an organized protest cannot be guilty of whatever protestors did, assuming the protestors did commit crimes or caus harm to others.
The problem is the Supreme Court left some doors open. I think McKesson was an attempt to blame someone when the actual protestors who did harm couldn't be identified, but the leader in the case was easily identifiable.
The trespassing on a Church is the problem here. US case law goes back to colonial times, and England. The 1st Amendment has huge precedence for protecting suppression of religion. (In colonial times, pastors were dragged from rogue churches and beaten. Plenty of Founders wrote about the primacy of people to freely have a faith, and the power of the government would be used to protect that right.) So the protestors choosing a Church created a civil rights claim. The Supreme Court will have to figure out 2 components of the 1st Amendment: protesting, and religion.
It was a poor choice to barge in on a Church, for legal reasons, but it did create political optics, as you say.
Calling yourself a journalist or reporter gives you no right to trespass. I'm happy for him to peacefully protest and report about it, but he shouldn't have trespassed.
Well, it was an act of civil disobedience, and in that regard, it's complicated. The laws protecting property and religious rights are clear. But it's also the case that it's sometimes a legitimate tactic to break the law in service of a greater good. The protesters are not the state and have a different set of imperatives.
So how does the state behave in those circumstances? Ideally, they simply enforce the law without prejudice for or against the protesters or the targets of the protest. Of course, in the real world, this is where favoritism and/or abuses of authority come into play more often than not. The problem with the previous era of "woke" campus politics was that left-wing activist groups could often shut down whoever they liked and get a blind eye or even support from the administration. In other cases, activists might be disproportionately punished for small crimes as a way of punishing the protesters for their expressive message, and I think that's what's happening here. At most, what the protesters did was a small act of trespassing and disturbing the peace, and should been settled by local law enforcement and state courts, and perhaps by civil suit against the protest organizers. Instead, this case has been federalized and made the subject of a questionable civil rights claim.
As to the role of Don Lemon, I do think the place of participant-observer journalists needs to be legally clarified. If I'm not mistaken, some of the folks who entered the Capitol on 1/6 also used the "I was covering it as a journalist" defense too. Nevertheless, I think Lemon has a very good claim that this prosecution is retaliatory.
It isn't that complicated. If I disapproved of what Israel was doing in Gaza and decided to go break up worship at a Synagogue I would go to jail and deserve to. This is no different. My own beliefs don't give me the right to oppress others in this country.
Um…courts of law who are seeing journalistic status used as a legal defense, in situations where that claim may or may not be valid. A consistent set of rules need to apply for claiming that status, whether you're Andy Ngo or Don Lemon.
Oh, fuck off. This Bizarro mirror-world morality play is just pathetic.
They invaded a church and harassed people. They weren't "protesting" they they were harassing.
Fuck RIGHT off with defending these assholes.
"Protest" is not a license to violence, or permission to violate laws or social norms. For decades, sociopaths have used "protest" as a cover for their desire for violence, all while claiming a moral superiority that they do not have
Lemon is a scoundrel and deserves the hardest punishment possible.
Lemon was part of it. He wasn't a neutral observer. He met up with the instigators beforehand and they coordinated on how to do it. That makes him a conspirator.
Besides, it's a private place. He's already basically trespassing by being there at all.
Anything to justify leftist violence, eh? We're going to rerun the leftist violence of the 1970s, aren't we?
Big supporter of FIRE but unclear based on the article what they are defending.
The FACE act makes it a crime to : use force, threats, or physical obstruction to intentionally interfere with anyone seeking to exercise their right of religious freedom at a house of worship or to intentionally damage the property.
Based on what the video shows Lemon arguably used force to intentionally interfere with the parishioners exercising their religion .
He tresspassed, jammed a camera and a microphone in someones face and questioned their presence in church.
Pretty intimidating to your average joe.
Others yelled and taunted and may have violated the act in other ways.
Is FIRE arguing for a journalist immunity provision? If so what is the definition of it?
Are they arguing that the act is unconstitutional on free speech grounds and Lemon was exercising his but can be charged with crimes under state law only? ( Trespassing or disturbing the peace?) i cant tell from the article.
I think the FIRE position needs some clarity.
As always this is a situation where bad facts make bad law.
Why do we need the FACE act at all?
Everyone of these “protesters “ can and maybe should be charged under state law. But they weren’t.
This act , like hate crimes, was created because local authorities abdicated their roles in dispensing justice and equal application of local law.
We end up with a Federal case and national headlines for what should be misdemeanors and punishment ( whatever is appropriate) at a local level.
The FACE Act charge requires evidence of force, threats, or physical obstruction. "Physical obstruction" means "rendering impassable ingress to or egress from . . . a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous." A true threat requires an expression of serious intent to inflict bodily harm and, at a minimum, proof that the speaker consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his speech would reasonably be understood as a threat. I don't believe the video evidence shows Lemon engaged in conduct that meets either standard.
He did seek to interview people but repeatedly said he was documenting the event, not participating in the protest. Some individuals agreed to speak with him; others declined or ended the conversation and freely walked away. At most, the facts suggest a possible misdemeanor trespass issue at the point when the pastor said he'd like Lemon to leave and he did not immediately exit. But the serious federal charges the government brought risk recasting Lemon's reporting and documenting of the event more broadly as participation in a criminal conspiracy.
None of this is to say Lemon's conduct is beyond criticism or that journalists deserve special immunity from generally applicable laws. But major federal charges against a journalist who was reporting on an event of public interest should raise eyebrows, particularly given the role of the press as a government watchdog and the temptation that creates for officials to use criminal law as a tool of retaliation. Taken together, the publicly available video evidence, two judges' findings that the government's evidence was too weak to establish probable cause, and the administration's animus toward Lemon and public gloating about the arrest raise serious questions about whether the prosecution amounts to retaliation against a government critic rather than an impartial application of the law. That would violate the First Amendment. And it sends a chilling message to other reporters whose views or coverage displease the administration.
FIRE is the best. Have followed and supported ( financially) your efforts for years.
I really think the Feds overreach in so many areas. DOJ often brings the hammer when they are better served using discretion and or just standing down.
Have you seen the video? His conduct is indistinguishable from the rest of the folks that he was with, except that he was playing for the camera.
Saying that he is a journalist doesn't change this. Reporters don't get to break the law, and they ESPECIALLY don't get to trample on the civil liberties of others to practice their religion inside of a church. The government is right to prosecute him.
I still dispute that there is a separate category of “journalist” that has any 1st amendment rights beyond that of any Joe citizen. “In a free society, journalists play a vital role in documenting and reporting on events of public concern, including illegal conduct.” That is true, but Don Lemon is no more or no less a journalist than you or I or Catturd in regards to their first amendment rights. He has no right to intrude on a religious service, stick a camera in someone’s face and ask what they think about ICE policies, the people that are actively obstructing the services, or what they think of the weather that day. If he is obstructing or disrupting a religious service, he’s guilty of the FACE Act. Just as I would be if I showed up at a UU “church” and started interrupting their gaia worship asking people how they felt about illegals being released in sanctuary cities that go on to commit additional violent crimes. Hammer. Prison.
I'm a strong supporter of FIRE, but you guys are wrong on this. No journalistic or First Amendment principle allows anyone to disrupt a church service. Lemon ceased to be a journalist and became a mere trespasser the minute he entered without permission, NOT just when he was asked to leave. So what he was doing--or thought he was doing--was not journalism, and his charges have nothing to do with journalism.
Lemon walks the wire. That probably gives him lots of admirers. I find him arrogant and obnoxious. He is more important than his causes. His show is about setting himself up a wise, cool smart-ass. Let’s see how goes about wriggling out of this cock-up.
I’m curious to know what Lemon meant when he said, “So that’s what we’re doing here, and after we do this operation, you’ll see it live, these operations are surprise operations… “ That makes me wonder in what capacity he was involved. That does not sound like the language of a neutral observer. It sounds like he’s part of the “we” which is the activist group. “After we do this operation.” I’d like to hear what Lemon knew and when he knew it. “The operation” involved disrupting church services. Are we to believe a journalist who worked at CNN is not aware peaceful protest and disrupting a church service are not the same? Lemon also made statements on a podcast after the event that raised eyebrows, potentially indicating motive, which you do not report on here. Those statements could have been presented to the grand jury, which may have impacted their decision.
He said a lot of things that put reasonable doubt that he was some kind of neutral observer. I believe he also stated before hand he was getting in on some kind of "secret operation". I think he tried to present it as such but it just seems highly doubtful.
Excellent point.
I'm tracking that by the effective of Lemon's own videos he was actively involved in planning this illegal activity, that he included himself among the "protestors", and that he engaged in illegal "protest" inside the church. In short, he knowingly conspired to commit a premeditated illegal act as part of an organized group. He's every bit as guilty as any of them. Filming yourself committing the crime is NOT a "get out of jail free card".
Thanks for your comment. I fully agree that filming yourself committing a crime is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And journalists do not have special immunity from the laws we all have to obey. But I don't believe the publicly available video evidence shows Lemon engaged in conduct that would satisfy the elements of the serious federal charges he’s facing under the FACE Act or 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Lemon clearly knew in advance that protesters were planning "an operation" and he was plainly sympathetic to their cause. But advance knowledge of the event and an intention to report on it are not the same as an advance agreement to use force, make threats, or physically obstruct ingress or egress at a house of worship to interfere with others' exercise of religious freedom.
During the protest itself, Lemon largely stood off to the side, did not chant or shout, did not threaten anyone, and did not appear to physically block anyone's movement. He interviewed congregants and protesters and, at times, became argumentative. But to my eye, people remained free to decline interviews, end conversations, and walk away, as some did. At most, the facts suggest a possible misdemeanor trespass issue after the pastor said he'd like Lemon to leave and he continued interviewing others instead of immediately exiting. That is a far cry from the major federal charges the government brought — charges that require proof of threats, force, physical obstruction, or coordinated agreement to engage in such conduct.
None of this is to say Lemon's conduct was praiseworthy or to suggest it is beyond criticism or even fully legal — only that the serious federal charges he's facing deserve heavy skepticism. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that two judges found the government's evidence is too weak to even justify a trial.
Also, just to be clear, the article's analysis is focused on the charges against Lemon, not the protesters, and FIRE posted a separate piece criticizing the disruption of the church service and explaining it is not protected by the First Amendment: https://expression.fire.org/p/anti-ice-protesters-disrupted-worship?utm_source=publication-search.
I have a different take. I think this is the perfect case, and I think it comes at a great time. Now, I do agree the reasons appear to be bad, by which I mean politically motivated. Nevertheless, I would like to see the courts rule on this event, not have it thrown out. Specifically, I would appreciate a ruling that clarifies the difference between action as a journalist and as an activist or protestor. In 2024 and 2025 several rulings clarified the relationship between government officials use of personal vs official social media channels. So now we have a scenario that can do the same for journalists and activists.
The fact that people disagree so much on whether he was acting as a journalist or as one of the activists/protestors is exactly why I think this is a good case. Again, I don't like that it appears to be politically motivated, but I will take the silver lining. If it really was crystal clear one way or the other, then call it a witch hunt, or the process is the punishment, and kick it out. This doesn't seem to be that clear to me. Especially his use of "we".
I don't know if I will agree with the rulings, because I don't know enough to predict them. But I would like them to exist one way or another.
Courts have already ruled on similar situations, so there is some precedence. They key problem with this protest was the Church.
Mckesson v. Doe ruled that a protest organizer cannot be held liable for actions of other protestors. In other words, someone speaking for an organized protest cannot be guilty of whatever protestors did, assuming the protestors did commit crimes or caus harm to others.
The problem is the Supreme Court left some doors open. I think McKesson was an attempt to blame someone when the actual protestors who did harm couldn't be identified, but the leader in the case was easily identifiable.
Lemon is a bit different ... was he simply outspoken and on-site. Will it be argued that he was the leader of a protest that trespassed? A judge already rejected one criminal filing about Lemon. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-homeland-security-arrest-two-protesters-disrupted-minnesota-church-rcna255409), but then a grand jury accepted a civil rights violation. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/don-lemon-arrested-federal-authorities-attorney-says-rcna256680) And in this case, there's all the videos that should identify protestors so there's not a problem of holding people accountable. So there's some differences to iron out.
The trespassing on a Church is the problem here. US case law goes back to colonial times, and England. The 1st Amendment has huge precedence for protecting suppression of religion. (In colonial times, pastors were dragged from rogue churches and beaten. Plenty of Founders wrote about the primacy of people to freely have a faith, and the power of the government would be used to protect that right.) So the protestors choosing a Church created a civil rights claim. The Supreme Court will have to figure out 2 components of the 1st Amendment: protesting, and religion.
It was a poor choice to barge in on a Church, for legal reasons, but it did create political optics, as you say.
Calling yourself a journalist or reporter gives you no right to trespass. I'm happy for him to peacefully protest and report about it, but he shouldn't have trespassed.
Well, it was an act of civil disobedience, and in that regard, it's complicated. The laws protecting property and religious rights are clear. But it's also the case that it's sometimes a legitimate tactic to break the law in service of a greater good. The protesters are not the state and have a different set of imperatives.
So how does the state behave in those circumstances? Ideally, they simply enforce the law without prejudice for or against the protesters or the targets of the protest. Of course, in the real world, this is where favoritism and/or abuses of authority come into play more often than not. The problem with the previous era of "woke" campus politics was that left-wing activist groups could often shut down whoever they liked and get a blind eye or even support from the administration. In other cases, activists might be disproportionately punished for small crimes as a way of punishing the protesters for their expressive message, and I think that's what's happening here. At most, what the protesters did was a small act of trespassing and disturbing the peace, and should been settled by local law enforcement and state courts, and perhaps by civil suit against the protest organizers. Instead, this case has been federalized and made the subject of a questionable civil rights claim.
As to the role of Don Lemon, I do think the place of participant-observer journalists needs to be legally clarified. If I'm not mistaken, some of the folks who entered the Capitol on 1/6 also used the "I was covering it as a journalist" defense too. Nevertheless, I think Lemon has a very good claim that this prosecution is retaliatory.
It isn't that complicated. If I disapproved of what Israel was doing in Gaza and decided to go break up worship at a Synagogue I would go to jail and deserve to. This is no different. My own beliefs don't give me the right to oppress others in this country.
"it's sometimes a legitimate tactic to break the law in service of a greater good."
Who determines if it was in the service of a greater good? Whose greater good?
"I do think the place of participant-observer journalists needs to be legally clarified."
How and by whom? Do we want the government making that determination?
Um…courts of law who are seeing journalistic status used as a legal defense, in situations where that claim may or may not be valid. A consistent set of rules need to apply for claiming that status, whether you're Andy Ngo or Don Lemon.
Don Lemon’s journalism is the window dressing to his role as the propaganda function of the disrupters. Still, it will be a high bar to prosecute.
Oh, fuck off. This Bizarro mirror-world morality play is just pathetic.
They invaded a church and harassed people. They weren't "protesting" they they were harassing.
Fuck RIGHT off with defending these assholes.
"Protest" is not a license to violence, or permission to violate laws or social norms. For decades, sociopaths have used "protest" as a cover for their desire for violence, all while claiming a moral superiority that they do not have
Lemon is a scoundrel and deserves the hardest punishment possible.
To be clear, the article's analysis is focused on the charges against Lemon, not the protesters, and FIRE posted a separate piece criticizing the disruption of the church service and explaining it is not protected by the First Amendment: https://expression.fire.org/p/anti-ice-protesters-disrupted-worship?utm_source=publication-search.
My response to another comment explains in more detail why the charges against Lemon deserve serious skepticism: https://expression.fire.org/p/the-federal-charges-against-don-lemon/comment/208447268.
Lemon was part of it. He wasn't a neutral observer. He met up with the instigators beforehand and they coordinated on how to do it. That makes him a conspirator.
Besides, it's a private place. He's already basically trespassing by being there at all.
Anything to justify leftist violence, eh? We're going to rerun the leftist violence of the 1970s, aren't we?
Big supporter of FIRE but unclear based on the article what they are defending.
The FACE act makes it a crime to : use force, threats, or physical obstruction to intentionally interfere with anyone seeking to exercise their right of religious freedom at a house of worship or to intentionally damage the property.
Based on what the video shows Lemon arguably used force to intentionally interfere with the parishioners exercising their religion .
He tresspassed, jammed a camera and a microphone in someones face and questioned their presence in church.
Pretty intimidating to your average joe.
Others yelled and taunted and may have violated the act in other ways.
Is FIRE arguing for a journalist immunity provision? If so what is the definition of it?
Are they arguing that the act is unconstitutional on free speech grounds and Lemon was exercising his but can be charged with crimes under state law only? ( Trespassing or disturbing the peace?) i cant tell from the article.
I think the FIRE position needs some clarity.
As always this is a situation where bad facts make bad law.
Why do we need the FACE act at all?
Everyone of these “protesters “ can and maybe should be charged under state law. But they weren’t.
This act , like hate crimes, was created because local authorities abdicated their roles in dispensing justice and equal application of local law.
We end up with a Federal case and national headlines for what should be misdemeanors and punishment ( whatever is appropriate) at a local level.
Thank you for your comment and your support.
The FACE Act charge requires evidence of force, threats, or physical obstruction. "Physical obstruction" means "rendering impassable ingress to or egress from . . . a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous." A true threat requires an expression of serious intent to inflict bodily harm and, at a minimum, proof that the speaker consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his speech would reasonably be understood as a threat. I don't believe the video evidence shows Lemon engaged in conduct that meets either standard.
He did seek to interview people but repeatedly said he was documenting the event, not participating in the protest. Some individuals agreed to speak with him; others declined or ended the conversation and freely walked away. At most, the facts suggest a possible misdemeanor trespass issue at the point when the pastor said he'd like Lemon to leave and he did not immediately exit. But the serious federal charges the government brought risk recasting Lemon's reporting and documenting of the event more broadly as participation in a criminal conspiracy.
None of this is to say Lemon's conduct is beyond criticism or that journalists deserve special immunity from generally applicable laws. But major federal charges against a journalist who was reporting on an event of public interest should raise eyebrows, particularly given the role of the press as a government watchdog and the temptation that creates for officials to use criminal law as a tool of retaliation. Taken together, the publicly available video evidence, two judges' findings that the government's evidence was too weak to establish probable cause, and the administration's animus toward Lemon and public gloating about the arrest raise serious questions about whether the prosecution amounts to retaliation against a government critic rather than an impartial application of the law. That would violate the First Amendment. And it sends a chilling message to other reporters whose views or coverage displease the administration.
Thanks for the clarification.
FIRE is the best. Have followed and supported ( financially) your efforts for years.
I really think the Feds overreach in so many areas. DOJ often brings the hammer when they are better served using discretion and or just standing down.
Thanks again for added context.
Have you seen the video? His conduct is indistinguishable from the rest of the folks that he was with, except that he was playing for the camera.
Saying that he is a journalist doesn't change this. Reporters don't get to break the law, and they ESPECIALLY don't get to trample on the civil liberties of others to practice their religion inside of a church. The government is right to prosecute him.
I still dispute that there is a separate category of “journalist” that has any 1st amendment rights beyond that of any Joe citizen. “In a free society, journalists play a vital role in documenting and reporting on events of public concern, including illegal conduct.” That is true, but Don Lemon is no more or no less a journalist than you or I or Catturd in regards to their first amendment rights. He has no right to intrude on a religious service, stick a camera in someone’s face and ask what they think about ICE policies, the people that are actively obstructing the services, or what they think of the weather that day. If he is obstructing or disrupting a religious service, he’s guilty of the FACE Act. Just as I would be if I showed up at a UU “church” and started interrupting their gaia worship asking people how they felt about illegals being released in sanctuary cities that go on to commit additional violent crimes. Hammer. Prison.
I'm a strong supporter of FIRE, but you guys are wrong on this. No journalistic or First Amendment principle allows anyone to disrupt a church service. Lemon ceased to be a journalist and became a mere trespasser the minute he entered without permission, NOT just when he was asked to leave. So what he was doing--or thought he was doing--was not journalism, and his charges have nothing to do with journalism.
Lemon walks the wire. That probably gives him lots of admirers. I find him arrogant and obnoxious. He is more important than his causes. His show is about setting himself up a wise, cool smart-ass. Let’s see how goes about wriggling out of this cock-up.