American Press Freedom Ends at the Religious Pulpit: How Don Lemon’s Media Activism Crossed the Line
Minnesota has been in the eye of a long-winded storm over the past several weeks. Record-breaking immigration enforcement actions, agitated protesters, and violent riots have swept across the state amid heightened scrutiny from federal officials. That scrutiny has intensified as state and local leaders, most of them Democrats, have refused to cooperate with federal authorities and, in some cases, have openly encouraged opposition and protest through increasingly inflammatory rhetoric. The result has been a visible escalation in confrontations between federal law enforcement and local activists.
It was against this backdrop that ousted CNN journalist Don Lemon, now operating independently, placed himself at the center of controversy. While covering protests earlier this month, Lemon acknowledged during his own livestream that he was aware a group of protesters intended to enter St. Paul Church to disrupt an active religious service. Rather than disengage, he followed them inside, appearing to actively participate in the disruption.
What Led to Journalist Don Lemon’s Arrest?
Once inside the church, Lemon confronted the pastor mid-sermon, pressing him with questions about whether he was affiliated with ICE, a claim the Department of Homeland Security has neither confirmed nor denied. As this unfolded, congregants, including families and children, remained seated in visible confusion and fear while protesters disrupted the worship space and hurled accusations at churchgoers, including labeling some as “Nazis.”
The incident quickly went viral and has since resulted in Lemon’s arrest, along with federal civil rights charges against him and others, including alleged violations of the FACE Act. Lemon’s legal team argues that his actions were protected by the First Amendment because he was acting as a journalist. But this case raises a far more precise and consequential question. Where does press activity end and unlawful interference begin, especially inside a place of worship?
What The First Amendment Allows, and What It Does Not
One thing is certain. No one, including journalists, is immune to the law. The First Amendment does not confer a license to intimidate, disrupt, or obstruct religious worship, particularly on private property and without the consent of church leadership. The footage is striking not just for what occurs, but for what is absent. There is no consent – the pastor appears visibly confused and intimidated as he is confronted in the middle of a sermon he did not agree to pause or surrender.
The irony is difficult to ignore. Many of the same liberal voices that championed “consent” as a governing principle did not attempt to obtain it from the pastor or the congregants before subjecting them to harassment inside their own church. In the American constitutional order, the freedom to worship remains among the most protected liberties, and it does not yield to media activism.
Journalists have a clear and well-established right to cover protests, demonstrations, and matters of public concern. That right, however, has always been subject to legal limits. The First Amendment protects newsgathering in public forums, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. It does not grant journalists special access to private property, immunity from trespass laws, or the authority to interrupt protected activities, including religious worship.
Covering a protest from a public sidewalk, for example, is protected. Entering a church without consent during an active service, confronting clergy mid-sermon, and participating in a disruption is not. The Constitution has never treated journalism as a license to override the rights of others.
The First Amendment is not a blanket shield for all conduct carried out while holding a microphone or a camera. Its protections are robust, but they are not absolute. They do not extend to behavior that interferes with the rights of others or disrupts protected, private activities. This distinction between speech and conduct is foundational in constitutional law and central to understanding why the federal civil rights charges in this case remain legally sound.
Here, Don Lemon’s own livestream footage is pivotal. He acknowledges advance knowledge of the planned disruption, follows protesters onto private property, and directly confronts the pastor mid-sermon. The interruption is sustained, targeted, and disruptive. At that point, the issue is no longer press freedom; it becomes unlawful interference.
Courts have consistently held that the First Amendment does not protect harassment, intimidation, trespass, or the disruption of lawful assemblies, particularly when those assemblies involve constitutionally protected religious worship. A church service is not a public forum. It is private property, and it is afforded heightened protection under federal civil rights law precisely because of its religious nature.
Why the FACE Act Applies
That is where the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the FACE Act, becomes relevant. Passed into law in the early 1990s and often associated with abortion facilities, the statute also explicitly protects places of religious worship. It does not require violence or physical force. It requires intentional conduct that disrupts or intimidates individuals exercising their right to worship. A threshold clearly met here, thanks to our chronically online and digital age.
This is not uncharted legal territory. Courts have repeatedly held that expressive intent does not immunize disruptive conduct, particularly when it interferes with religious exercise or other protected activities. Claims of journalism, advocacy, or protest have not prevented arrests or convictions when conduct crossed into intimidation, harassment, or unlawful interference.
Protests may be protected in traditional public forums, subject to time, place, and manner restrictions. Churches, private property, and building interiors are nonpublic forums where protest activity requires permission. More directly, federal courts have upheld arrests and convictions under the FACE Act for conduct that interfered with religious worship, even when defendants claimed expressive or advocacy motives. In United States v. Weslin (1998), the court rejected First Amendment defenses raised by activists convicted under the FACE Act, holding that the statute regulates conduct, not speech, and permissibly prohibits intimidation and interference with protected activities. The court made clear that invoking expressive purpose does not convert unlawful interference into protected speech.
Similarly, in United States v. Gregg (2000), the court upheld FACE Act convictions where defendants argued that their actions were political expression. The court found that intentional obstruction and intimidation, even when framed as protest or advocacy, fell outside First Amendment protection. The law’s purpose was not to suppress ideas, but to protect individuals exercising their rights without fear or disruption.
These cases establish a consistent rule: the First Amendment does not shield conduct that disrupts protected activity, particularly in contexts explicitly safeguarded by federal civil rights law. The status of the individual, whether activist, protester, or journalist, does not change that analysis.
This is why the argument advanced by Lemon’s legal team misses the point. The question is not whether journalists have First Amendment protections; they do when their jobs meet all other lawful conditions as set forth in order to participate in their duties. The question is whether those protections extend to behavior that disrupts religious worship on private property. The answer, under both constitutional doctrine and federal statute, has been demonstrated to be no.
Final Thoughts
This case does not test whether journalists have First Amendment protections. They do. It tests whether those protections extend into sacred spaces where others are exercising their most fundamental liberties. The answer, under both constitutional doctrine and federal law, is no.
Freedom of the press does not include the right to trespass, harass clergy, interrupt worship, or participate in the intimidation of congregants. A church service is not a stage, and a pulpit is not a press podium. When media activity crosses into interference, it ceases to be protected speech and becomes actionable misconduct.
The First Amendment was never designed to elevate one freedom by destroying another. Religious liberty is not subordinate to media activism, and the freedom to worship without disruption remains among the most protected rights in American law. That protection does not dissolve because a camera is rolling.
This case is not about silencing journalists, it is about enforcing boundaries. In a constitutional system grounded in ordered liberty, no individual is above the law, and no profession carries special immunity from accountability. When press freedom collides with the right and freedom to worship, the Constitution draws a clear line. And in this case, that line was crossed. Don Lemon has always been vocal about stating that no one is above the law. It’s about time that left-wing journalists like himself with a media activist agenda are held accountable for their own actions.
American Press Freedom Ends at the Religious Pulpit: How Don Lemon’s Media Activism Crossed the Line
Minnesota has been in the eye of a long-winded storm over the past several weeks. Record-breaking immigration enforcement actions, agitated protesters, and violent riots have swept across the state amid heightened scrutiny from federal officials. That scrutiny has intensified as state and local leaders, most of them Democrats, have refused to cooperate with federal authorities and, in some cases, have openly encouraged opposition and protest through increasingly inflammatory rhetoric. The result has been a visible escalation in confrontations between federal law enforcement and local activists.
It was against this backdrop that ousted CNN journalist Don Lemon, now operating independently, placed himself at the center of controversy. While covering protests earlier this month, Lemon acknowledged during his own livestream that he was aware a group of protesters intended to enter St. Paul Church to disrupt an active religious service. Rather than disengage, he followed them inside, appearing to actively participate in the disruption.
What Led to Journalist Don Lemon’s Arrest?
Once inside the church, Lemon confronted the pastor mid-sermon, pressing him with questions about whether he was affiliated with ICE, a claim the Department of Homeland Security has neither confirmed nor denied. As this unfolded, congregants, including families and children, remained seated in visible confusion and fear while protesters disrupted the worship space and hurled accusations at churchgoers, including labeling some as “Nazis.”
The incident quickly went viral and has since resulted in Lemon’s arrest, along with federal civil rights charges against him and others, including alleged violations of the FACE Act. Lemon’s legal team argues that his actions were protected by the First Amendment because he was acting as a journalist. But this case raises a far more precise and consequential question. Where does press activity end and unlawful interference begin, especially inside a place of worship?
What The First Amendment Allows, and What It Does Not
One thing is certain. No one, including journalists, is immune to the law. The First Amendment does not confer a license to intimidate, disrupt, or obstruct religious worship, particularly on private property and without the consent of church leadership. The footage is striking not just for what occurs, but for what is absent. There is no consent – the pastor appears visibly confused and intimidated as he is confronted in the middle of a sermon he did not agree to pause or surrender.
The irony is difficult to ignore. Many of the same liberal voices that championed “consent” as a governing principle did not attempt to obtain it from the pastor or the congregants before subjecting them to harassment inside their own church. In the American constitutional order, the freedom to worship remains among the most protected liberties, and it does not yield to media activism.
Journalists have a clear and well-established right to cover protests, demonstrations, and matters of public concern. That right, however, has always been subject to legal limits. The First Amendment protects newsgathering in public forums, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. It does not grant journalists special access to private property, immunity from trespass laws, or the authority to interrupt protected activities, including religious worship.
Covering a protest from a public sidewalk, for example, is protected. Entering a church without consent during an active service, confronting clergy mid-sermon, and participating in a disruption is not. The Constitution has never treated journalism as a license to override the rights of others.
The First Amendment is not a blanket shield for all conduct carried out while holding a microphone or a camera. Its protections are robust, but they are not absolute. They do not extend to behavior that interferes with the rights of others or disrupts protected, private activities. This distinction between speech and conduct is foundational in constitutional law and central to understanding why the federal civil rights charges in this case remain legally sound.
Here, Don Lemon’s own livestream footage is pivotal. He acknowledges advance knowledge of the planned disruption, follows protesters onto private property, and directly confronts the pastor mid-sermon. The interruption is sustained, targeted, and disruptive. At that point, the issue is no longer press freedom; it becomes unlawful interference.
Courts have consistently held that the First Amendment does not protect harassment, intimidation, trespass, or the disruption of lawful assemblies, particularly when those assemblies involve constitutionally protected religious worship. A church service is not a public forum. It is private property, and it is afforded heightened protection under federal civil rights law precisely because of its religious nature.
Why the FACE Act Applies
That is where the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the FACE Act, becomes relevant. Passed into law in the early 1990s and often associated with abortion facilities, the statute also explicitly protects places of religious worship. It does not require violence or physical force. It requires intentional conduct that disrupts or intimidates individuals exercising their right to worship. A threshold clearly met here, thanks to our chronically online and digital age.
This is not uncharted legal territory. Courts have repeatedly held that expressive intent does not immunize disruptive conduct, particularly when it interferes with religious exercise or other protected activities. Claims of journalism, advocacy, or protest have not prevented arrests or convictions when conduct crossed into intimidation, harassment, or unlawful interference.
Protests may be protected in traditional public forums, subject to time, place, and manner restrictions. Churches, private property, and building interiors are nonpublic forums where protest activity requires permission. More directly, federal courts have upheld arrests and convictions under the FACE Act for conduct that interfered with religious worship, even when defendants claimed expressive or advocacy motives. In United States v. Weslin (1998), the court rejected First Amendment defenses raised by activists convicted under the FACE Act, holding that the statute regulates conduct, not speech, and permissibly prohibits intimidation and interference with protected activities. The court made clear that invoking expressive purpose does not convert unlawful interference into protected speech.
Similarly, in United States v. Gregg (2000), the court upheld FACE Act convictions where defendants argued that their actions were political expression. The court found that intentional obstruction and intimidation, even when framed as protest or advocacy, fell outside First Amendment protection. The law’s purpose was not to suppress ideas, but to protect individuals exercising their rights without fear or disruption.
These cases establish a consistent rule: the First Amendment does not shield conduct that disrupts protected activity, particularly in contexts explicitly safeguarded by federal civil rights law. The status of the individual, whether activist, protester, or journalist, does not change that analysis.
This is why the argument advanced by Lemon’s legal team misses the point. The question is not whether journalists have First Amendment protections; they do when their jobs meet all other lawful conditions as set forth in order to participate in their duties. The question is whether those protections extend to behavior that disrupts religious worship on private property. The answer, under both constitutional doctrine and federal statute, has been demonstrated to be no.
Final Thoughts
This case does not test whether journalists have First Amendment protections. They do. It tests whether those protections extend into sacred spaces where others are exercising their most fundamental liberties. The answer, under both constitutional doctrine and federal law, is no.
Freedom of the press does not include the right to trespass, harass clergy, interrupt worship, or participate in the intimidation of congregants. A church service is not a stage, and a pulpit is not a press podium. When media activity crosses into interference, it ceases to be protected speech and becomes actionable misconduct.
The First Amendment was never designed to elevate one freedom by destroying another. Religious liberty is not subordinate to media activism, and the freedom to worship without disruption remains among the most protected rights in American law. That protection does not dissolve because a camera is rolling.
This case is not about silencing journalists, it is about enforcing boundaries. In a constitutional system grounded in ordered liberty, no individual is above the law, and no profession carries special immunity from accountability. When press freedom collides with the right and freedom to worship, the Constitution draws a clear line. And in this case, that line was crossed. Don Lemon has always been vocal about stating that no one is above the law. It’s about time that left-wing journalists like himself with a media activist agenda are held accountable for their own actions.
