Don Lemon was arrested on the 30th of January, and released without bond after a federal grand jury indicted him and eight others for conspiring to interfere with religious exercise at Cities Church in St Paul, Minnesota. The charges under the FACE Act stem from his January 18th livestream inside the church during an anti-ICE protest that interrupted Pastor David Easterwood’s sermon, with prosecutors arguing that Lemon crossed from journalism into participation by helping plan the disruption. Well, his attorney and numerous talking heads on the left claim that this is an attack on the First Amendment, while there is a broader discussion on the need to protect worship rights. Well, today, we then ought to address this development further, looking at Don Lemon indictment and the application of first amendment jurisprudence.

WHY WAS DON LEMON & ALL PROTESTERS ON THE SCENE AT CITIES CHURCH IN ST PAUL?

Don Lemon indictment and the application of first amendment jurisprudence, and we ought to begin with establishing the basic facts that led to Don Lemon’s indictment.

In essence, on the 18th of January, Don Lemon livestreamed from inside Cities Church in St Paul, Minnesota, as anti-ICE protesters interrupted Pastor David Easterwood’s scheduled involvement – or more precisely, the ongoing sermon led by lead pastor Jonathan Parnell – during a Sunday service. The event was framed as having stemmed from community outrage over Pastor Easterwood’s dual role: in which he is listed as a Pastor at the Southern Baptist-affiliated Cities Church while serving as acting field office director for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or ICE) in St Paul.

As such, protesters, organized by activists including attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, entered the church to highlight what they called hypocrisy. They accused Pastor Easterwood of preaching “love thy neighbor” while overseeing aggressive ICE operations, including alleged unconstitutional arrests, due process violations, attacks on protesters and journalists, and failures in investigating incidents like the fatal shooting of Renee Good during federal actions.

And so, as the service progressed, demonstrators stood up, chanted slogans like “ICE out!” or “David Easterwood, out now!” and “Hands up don’t shoot”, while proceeding to confront the congregation. The protesters even began shouting demands for accountability, some blowing whistles, and surrounding areas near the pulpit. During this time, lead Pastor Parnell responded by shouting “Shame on you, this is the house of God and we are worshipping,” urging the protesters to leave and emphasising the sanctity of the House of God. Meanwhile, congregants, including families with children, appeared startled and terrified, with some describing the intrusion as not only disrespectful but also threatening.

In all of this Don Lemon was present as a journalist covering heightened immigration enforcement under the Trump administration – or so they claimed. It actually turns out that Don Lemon was not merely covering the protest, but he had actually begun his nearly seven-hour livestream BEFORE and then during the disruption. He also entered the church alongside the protesters, documenting events in real time. Footage even showed him interviewing protesters outside beforehand, and then also speaking with congregants, and engaging one of the pastors (although it was more harassment in favour of the protesters, than it was a conversation. In fact, in clips, you could see where he leaned, because Lemon thanked an activist for her work (for example), even assured her he wasn’t revealing plans, while he later fired questions toward church leaders to amplify the protesters’ message about Pastor Easterwood’s role.

Now, I’d like to address two points from these factual considerations. The first point, as alluded to earlier, is that the protesters targeted Cities Church in St Paul because they claim outrage over Pastor Easterwood’s dual role: in which he is listed as a Pastor at the Southern Baptist-affiliated Cities Church while serving as acting field office director for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or ICE). The first response here is that Pastor Easterwood’s dual role appears to be based on inference from media appearances, but is not confirmed by official sources. In fact, Tricia McLaughlin, who is the assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, told media publications that the department (quote) “will never confirm or deny attempts to dox our law enforcement officers. Doxing our officers puts their lives and their families in serious danger.” And so, in targeting Pastor Easterwood and Cities Church, the protesters were not necessarily acting on official information, or information that the Department of Homeland Security would have sanctioned, in light of its protectionist policies.

Secondly, EVEN IF Pastor Easterwood is (in fact) a listed office director for ICE, there is no protestable offence in that. Not only is he entitled to make the choice about how he contributes to society in addition to his Pastoral affairs, but (as far as ICE is concerned) generally the Church is very law abiding. We (as the Church) are the biggest supporters of the government, UNLESS the laws are against God’s precepts and decrees. And so, we must be very clear in communicating the fact that there is nothing protestable in members of the Church supporting or collaborating with law enforcement, insofar as the law does not go against God’s precepts and decrees. As such, there is no legitimate argument or provocation that the protesters had. Period.

The second response I’d like to give here is that for all the talk about the protesters having first amendment rights, and therefore having an entitlement to protest at Cities Church, the answer is emphatically no. And here, I am not refuting that the protesters have first amendment rights (of course they do). However, what I am refuting is that those first amendment rights justify them storming a Church. The First Amendment regulates the relationship between the US government and citizens. But Cities Church in St Paul, Minnesota is not a government church. It is a private institution. Therefore, the first amendment defence is a stretch at best, but we’ll address this further, when we zoom in on first amendment jurisprudence.

THE DETAILS OF THE CASE AGAINST DON LEMON

In any case, having established the facts of what transpired on the 18th of January, inside Cities Church in St Paul, we then ought to address the details of the case against Don Lemon. And for good measure, I think here, we ought to start with an excerpt from Don Lemon’s live stream in which he actually incriminates himself.

Well, when you consider the fact that Don Lemon was not merely covering the protest, but he had actually begun his nearly seven-hour livestream BEFORE the disruption, and even entered the church alongside the protesters – the prosecutors are right. Don Lemon was not primarily acting as a journalist on the 18th of January. Rather, his actions constituted coordination and interference, while journalistic activity was secondary (at best) – this is evident from Don Lemon’s OWN footage.

But, if anyone thought that the obvious and observable facts on what transpired on January 18th at Cities Church would encourage a constructive response on Don Lemon’s part, well his remarks outside of the courtroom after release will be disappointing, because first, Don Lemon and his defenders insist he was acting as a journalist, and a protester because he explicitly said, (quote) “We’re not part of the activists, but we’re here just reporting on them.” And I find this funny because it shows Don Lemon worked at CNN and benefited from an unchecked presumption of credibility, in that he assumes that his words are a sufficient defence despite actions in the live stream that prove the opposite. But, it is one thing to say you are not part of the protesters, and another to help maintain secrecy of those plans after knowing them ahead of time, another to collaborate and use possessive language when talking about those plans, and even storming the Church with the protesters.

In any case, Don Lemon essentially opted for a display of classic leftist narcissistic self-rationalised victimisation, saying that he will not be silenced.

DON LEMON IS NOT BEING “SILENCED”; HE WAS INDICTED BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS

I will not dignify those remarks by pretending to be surprised. But, there are two things I’d like to highlight from Don Lemon’s response. First is that no one is actually trying to silence Don Lemon (at least as far as the indictment is concerned); he is simply going through a process of formal legal resource, and happens to be on the losing end of that process. I say this because, contrary to leftist media messaging, Don Lemon was NOT indicted by president Trump. He was indicted by a federal grand jury. These two things are not the same.

In the US criminal justice system, an indictment is a formal accusation issued by a grand jury, which is a panel of citizens convened to review evidence presented by prosecutors and determine if there is probable cause to believe a crime occurred. The grand jury acts independently, though prosecutors guide the process by presenting witnesses, documents, and arguments. No judge or elected official, including the president, directly “indicts” someone. 

And well, the case with Don Lemon involving Lemon illustrates this distinction clearly. What led to Don Lemon’s indictment is that Federal prosecutors initially sought arrest warrants through a magistrate judge, who rejected them for Lemon and several others, finding insufficient probable cause under statutes like 18 U.S.C. Section 241 (on conspiracy against rights) and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (or FACE) Act (which protects religious exercise from interference). An appeals court also declined to intervene.

But, undeterred, the Department of Justice pursued an alternative path: empaneling a grand jury in Minnesota. That grand jury returned a multi-count indictment against Lemon and eight co-defendants (including journalist Georgia Fort and protesters), charging conspiracy to deprive individuals of religious freedom rights and interfering with those rights through intimidation, obstruction, or threats. As we alluded to earlier, the indictment alleges that Don Lemon had advance knowledge of the protest plans, helped maintain secrecy in some communications, and participated in ways that went beyond mere reporting. So, no one is trying to silencine him, in fact it was a jury of his peers (and not activist judges or government officials) that found his actions deplorable and indicted him. Which, on its own, I believe emphasises that he really is on the losing end of this formal legal resource process, because he is trying to argue against common decency and basic rights.

NOT ALL INDEPENDENT MEDIA IS INDEPENDENT

Then, the second thing I’d like to highlight from Don Lemon’s response, is that not all independent media is independent. I say this because Don Lemon emphasised the need for a truly free and independent media, and is also generally described as an independent journalist since he was fired from CNN. BUT, as far as jos coverage is concerned, Don Lemon’s independence is a formal technicality, and not a substantive fact. This is to say that for all his talk about independence and revelatory fact-finding, Don Lemon is still a leftist, CNN-styled journalist, who only runs his own media corporation.

And so, if we are to speak of independent media, the “independent” tag should not be all that speaks. Frankly we should ask “independent from what?” To which, in the case of Don Lemon, we would quickly discover he is independent from CNN and mainstream media companies, but is not substantively independent from leftist ideals and corresponding tendencies. 

And this is why, we recently covered the phenomenon where many so-called “independent” journalists are being silently purchased in the status quo. And we did this not to undermine the importance of independent journalism, but to highlight a threat to this very independence as recent revelations and ongoing disclosures highlight a troubling trend: where covert influence campaigns, funded by hidden foreign governments and powerful corporate interests, deliberately target audiences through popular influencers, which now even includes what were said to be independent journalists.

FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE, & WHETHER THERE IS A STRONG DEFENCE FOR THE PROTESTERS 

Now, earlier, I highlighted that the prevailing defensive argument from Don Lemon, co-protesters, and their leftist supporters is that they were simply exercising their first amendment rights. And so, as flagged earlier on, we ought to take stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US. 

Okay, so that’s relatively what the defensive argument in favour of Don Lemon and company entails – they have first amendment rights, and he especially has freedom of the press to cover developments. Let’s then look at what the first amendment entails.

Now, first and foremost, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the fundamental rights of persons to express themselves, to gather with other people, and to protest their government, among other rights. The text of the First Amendment itself is quite short but emphatic; it states that (quote): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, since the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, this short paragraph has acted as the basis of the right to free speech in the US. People across the US have sacrificed, litigated, legislated, and organised to ensure that the rights conferred by this amendment are upheld. In light of this, here is what the overall jurisprudence and progressively litigated precedent concerning the First Amendment looks like today:

To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits government agencies from censoring, discriminating against, or applying rules inconsistently to private speech based on its viewpoint. This principle is called “viewpoint neutrality,” and it means that local and federal government agencies can NOT allow expression on a given subject from Viewpoint A – but not from Viewpoint B. For example, the government can NOT approve a permit for an pro-abortion rally, while blocking a permit for an anti-abortion rally. Not only this, but viewpoint neutrality is not even limited to political issues. For example, panhandling – or asking passersby for money in public places – is actually also constitutionally protected under viewpoint neutrality. And the idea is that governments cannot ban people from asking for money for themselves in public places, while at the same time allowing people to ask for money for something like the Girl Scouts or political campaigns.

Secondly, the First Amendment protects a person’s right to express him/herself and to testify before, petition, and protest the many branches and agencies of the local and federal government. If, for example, a person in the US wants to picket his/her local police station to protest an issue of misconduct, or wants to protest a law that council members passed, the First Amendment protects the right to do so. Furthermore, the First Amendment also prohibits all local government agencies, including public schools, from discriminating against speech based on its viewpoint. 

Then thirdly, the First Amendment, like the US Constitution generally, affords rights that people can use to challenge the government. Local and federal governments have many agencies, all of which must abide by the First Amendment. But free speech and association rights do not BLANKETLY apply to private organisations or people, even if those organisations or people receive funding from the government. These private organisations are thus entitled to formulate private organisational policies that people can choose to opt in or out of.

Now, what this means is that a private entity can suspend or fire an employee for something they say, or a social media platform can remove a user’s post without violating the First Amendment because they are not the government. It also means that a private entity can hold citizens accountable for violating their first amendment rights. HOWEVER, the exception is that if you can prove a private company is working with government actors to suppress speech, then the First Amendment will apply – which is what the Murthy v Missouri case is doing in light of how the Biden-Harris administrations coerced social media companies to censor speech on their platforms.

So, how does this apply in the Don Lemon case and the case against the protesters? Simply, it means that Cities Church in St Paul, Minnesota is not a government church. It is a private institution, and its congregation also has first amendment rights. Additionally, the first amendment rights of Don Lemon and the protesters cannot be used to justify violating the 1A rights of the congregation.

But, I do not expect people who were cheering on the Biden-Harris administration’s censorship efforts against conservatives and dissenters of COVID policy to understand the full scope of what first amendment jurisprudence entails.

LEST THEY FORGET: A HOUSE OF WORSHIP IS A SACRED PLACE

However, for all the talk about the first amendment, the right to worship God freely stands as a cornerstone of American liberty, enshrined ALSO in the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Additionally, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (or FACE) Act explicitly protects against using force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with religious freedom at a place of worship. 

But, perhaps, more importantly, private property like a church sanctuary is not a traditional public forum for unrestricted protest. The First Amendment does not grant a right to invade and shut down Church services. In fact, legal analyses emphasize that free speech protections end where they infringe on others’ rights – and in this case, it is the congregants’ right to peaceable assembly for worship. And so, the selective outrage from the left is telling. Vocal advocates for the protesters’ speech rights have said little about the worshippers’ experience: families were terrorized, a service derailed mid-prayer, children scared, and a sacred space violated. As such, this asymmetry reveals a broader inconsistency in defending one group’s expression while minimizing another’s sacred exercise of faith. The American Constitution demands reciprocity: just as the protesters claim free speech, Christians claim undisturbed worship under the same amendment.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso