St. Paul, Minnesota

The Narrative the Media Wants You to Believe

The corporate press wants Americans to believe Don Lemon was dragged into federal court for doing journalism. CBS News framed his arrest as an assault on the First Amendment, a chilling warning to reporters everywhere. That storyline is false. It collapses under even basic constitutional scrutiny.

Don Lemon was not arrested for reporting facts or observing events. He was arrested for participating in a planned, coordinated disruption of a worship service — a disruption that federal law explicitly forbids. Calling activism “journalism” does not magically transform illegal conduct into protected speech. The Constitution is not a costume one puts on when convenient.

This case is not about silencing reporters. It is about enforcing the law when political activists interfere with the free exercise of religion.

What the FACE Act Actually Says

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, commonly called the FACE Act, is a federal statute that protects people from intimidation, obstruction, or interference when they are exercising legally protected rights. While often associated with abortion clinics, its scope is broader.

The law makes it a crime to use force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally interfere with someone’s ability to exercise their religious freedom at a place of worship. Churches are explicitly protected. Congregants have the right to gather, worship, and leave without being harassed or blocked by protesters.

This law does not regulate speech. It regulates conduct. You may believe whatever you want. You may say whatever you want. You may not physically disrupt a religious service, intimidate worshippers, or block their exit and then hide behind the First Amendment.

Journalism Does Not Include Planning a Protest

CBS News wants readers to believe Lemon was “covering the news.” The indictment tells a very different story. According to court documents, Lemon participated in planning sessions, helped maintain secrecy, livestreamed a so-called “resistance operation,” and coordinated with demonstrators who intended to disrupt a church service.

That is not journalism. Journalists observe events; they do not organize them. Reporters document protests; they do not help conceal targets, give operational instructions, or physically occupy worship spaces.

Lemon did not stumble into a church with a notepad. He arrived with a plan, a livestream, and a group intent on confrontation. He crossed the line from observer to participant — and the Constitution does not protect that transformation.

Free Speech Does Not Cancel Someone Else’s Rights

One of the most dishonest moves in the media’s defense of Lemon is the suggestion that his speech rights override the church’s religious rights. That is not how the First Amendment works.

The Constitution protects multiple freedoms at the same time. Speech does not nullify religion. Protest does not erase worship. Your right to express opposition to ICE does not include the right to invade a sanctuary, intimidate congregants, or obstruct people from leaving.

When Lemon and his group occupied aisles, surrounded clergy, and blocked exits, they were not exercising free speech. They were interfering with the free exercise of religion — the very thing the First Amendment also protects.

Activism Disguised as Journalism

Lemon’s own words expose the truth. He referred to the operation as “resistance.” He refused to disclose the location to maintain secrecy. He reminded participants not to give details away. That is activist language, not journalistic neutrality.

Even more telling was his rhetoric toward the church itself, which he described as “full of white supremacists.” That kind of sweeping moral condemnation is not reporting. It is ideological agitation.

Journalism informs the public. Activism seeks to disrupt, shame, and coerce. Lemon chose the latter, then attempted to borrow the credibility of the former.

CBS’s Selective Outrage

CBS News devoted enormous space to Lemon’s clothing, celebrity support, and dramatic quotes about being “silenced.” What it downplayed was the basic allegation: a coordinated effort to intimidate worshippers during a religious service.

Notice what CBS did not defend. It did not defend blocking exits. It did not defend surrounding clergy. It did not defend ignoring requests to leave. Instead, it waved the First Amendment like a talisman, hoping readers would stop asking inconvenient questions.

This is the same media that applauds arrests of pro-life demonstrators under the same statute. The sudden outrage only appears when the defendant shares their politics.

The Real Threat to the First Amendment

The real danger is not enforcement of the FACE Act. The danger is redefining journalism so broadly that any activist with a camera becomes immune from the law.

If that standard held, no protester could ever be arrested so long as they claimed to be “documenting” their own behavior. Laws would become optional. Churches, synagogues, and mosques would become fair game for ideological intimidation.

The First Amendment was designed to protect liberty, not lawlessness. It draws a clear line between speech and conduct. Don Lemon crossed that line.

A Republic That Protects Worship

The Constitution protects a free press. It also protects the free exercise of religion. Those protections coexist — and neither exists to destroy the other.

Don Lemon was not arrested for asking questions or holding a microphone. He was arrested for participating in a disruptive protest inside a church. That distinction matters. Pretending otherwise is not journalism. It is propaganda.

America does not need fewer laws. It needs fewer lies about what those laws actually mean.

References

• CBS News: “Former CNN anchor Don Lemon appears in court after being arrested over protest at Minnesota church service”
• U.S. Department of Justice: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act)
• United States Constitution, First Amendment

Photo by Germar Derron:

‍