The grand jury indictment of Don Lemon has sparked an immediate outcry from leftist media pundits and progressive supporters. They throw up cries of free speech and the First Amendment like a shield but that shield does not cover Don here. The irony of leftists on social media arguing that suddenly free speech is dead or the right suddenly does not care about free speech feels less like a constitutional discussion and more like the tantrums of a toddler.

The Incident: A Mob at the Church Steps

We must look at the incident itself to understand the legal reality. On January 18 2026 Don Lemon met with a group of so called protesters. The protesters were not heading to City Hall or a federal building instead they marched to a church. The group claimed they charged the church with the crime of employing an assistant pastor who worked for ICE. Even if true this unconfirmed detail does not permit a mob to enter and frighten churchgoers and their children.

Don Lemon stated it is uncomfortable and traumatic for the people here but that is what protesting is all about. That statement is simply false. Inflicting trauma on private citizens in a private space is not a protected act.

The 250 Collection

Read the source documents. Support independent media.

Visit Shop

The Limits of the First Amendment

The First Amendment comes up twice in this incident regarding both Freedom of the Press and Free Speech. These are two of the most often misquoted and misunderstood aspects of our Constitution. The right to protest primarily protects protesting the government legally. Even in that situation the ACLU acknowledges on their own website that the “First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest but police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights.”

This admission comes directly from the ACLU. They acknowledge that the Constitution and case law allow limitations on protests mostly when they become non peaceful or have the potential to do so.

Private Property Rights and Protests

The group entering the church was not there to protest the government. Don brought them coffee and kissed the organizer on the cheek. Even if the pastor was an ICE member he was not acting in his official capacity while being a pastor. Furthermore private property laws limit protests. The CAIR website explicitly states you have the right to protest on private property if it is your own property or if the owner gives consent.

Like the ACLU, CAIR employs high priced lawyers who read the First Amendment and all the case law before putting this legal advice on the internet. Both of these highly liberal outlets provide clear warnings about First Amendment limitations. The church did not invite them and did not give previous consent. We have established that the law protects the church from disruption inside. We have also established that even if the incident occurred outside authorities can still place legal limitations on the group.

Freedom of the Press Has Boundaries

As a pundit who sometimes reports news I know the constitutional basis for Freedom of the Press well. Everyone should know it but media outlets have spent decades convincing the public they have a free pass to do whatever they want wherever they want. We saw this when officials removed reporters from the Pentagon. People went nuts claiming it violated the First Amendment but it did not. The press has no right to be in a place where officials discuss classified documents and plans.

Freedom of the press is simple. The press is free to criticize the government. Government is the key word. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Cornell University explains that this protects publishers from being forced to report content and allows them to freely investigate. Essentially the government cannot tell the press what to report on.

However when the entity is not the government the freedom of the press changes. We see this in the many cases where prosecutors convicted members of the press for going too far. Lucas Griffith a CityBeat photo intern covered a march on the Roebling Suspension Bridge and a jury found him guilty of failure to disperse. Sylvie Evans of the Colorado People’s Press accepted a plea deal for disorderly conduct while covering a protest at the DNC. Matilda Bliss and Veronica Coit were convicted of trespassing while documenting a police sweep. Leana Hosea pleaded no contest to trespass while filming a pipeline protest.

These examples provide context for the Don Lemon case. Sylvie Evans and Leana Hosea faced convictions for trespassing while covering protests. While authorities did not charge them under the FACE Act their cases show a legal acceptance of limitations under the First Amendment.

The FACE Act and Federal Law

Now we must cover the FACE Act. Known by its government name Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances the FACE Act also includes language regarding a place of worship. President Bill Clinton signed this into law in 1994. 18 U.S.C. § 248 prohibits using force threat of force or physical obstruction to intentionally injure intimidate or interfere with a person lawfully exercising religious freedom at a place of worship.

The statute also mentions damaging property but property damage does not need to be present for prosecutors to bring charges. The language suggest that each person in the church counts as an individual victim.

Conspiracy and Civil Rights Violations

Other charges apply here as well. Interference with religious exercise at a place of worship under 18 U.S.C. § 247 applies if someone uses force or threats to obstruct people exercising religious beliefs.

Most relevant to Don Lemon is the charge of conspiracy to deprive civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. This applies if two or more people conspire to injure oppress threaten or intimidate someone in exercising a constitutional right. We have video of Don bringing coffee to the tactical planning session. Don kissed the cheek of the organizer. He gave them comfort. Don knew their plan and travelled alongside them. He entered the church during the incident.

Don made himself a part of the story and then shared it for the world to see to get clicks. It is hard to argue against the conspiracy charge as he gained from the incident after knowing the plan. If he had waited outside and documented the event this would be a very different story but he did not.

The Double Standard

Imagine if Don was a white reporter in the 1950s or early 60s. Imagine he met with the KKK to protest a black church because a pastor worked for a prosecutor charging a KKK member. If he had brought the KKK members coffee, or kissed the leader on the cheek. Would the Democrats defend that today? We know they would have back then, and many Democrats did protect the KKK back then. Now they are doing it again by defending the same sort of action, it it is somehow ok now.

A Grand Jury indicted Don Lemon, a fact the headlines often leave out. Co-defendant Georgia Fort (an independent journalist) livestreamed her arrest, stating she had a “grand jury indictment” served to her. This confirms that the Grand Jury did not accept the “press pass” as a shield for the alleged conspiracy.

The left screaming that the right does not care about the First Amendment is ironic since most Democrats only know it exists and not what it contains.

Constitution and The Rule of Law

We stand by the First Amendment and understand the situational limitations SCOTUS has defined. The left only gloms on to it when it is convenient, but had zero issues with j6er’s being arrest. Which I have said that I wasn’t happy about how people acted on J6.

The left also ignores the fact that committing a crime while armed is not protected by the Second Amendment and enforcing congressionally approved laws is not tyranny. It is the rule of law. It is not tyrannical for federal law enforcement to respond to violence and interference with federal agents by making arrests. That is not peacefully protesting, it is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. But I don’t expect them to be an expert in what they hate, they have proven they don’t want to learn the law, they want to hide behind it.

About the Author

Sack Head Shaun

Administrator

Want to Help Support? Visit Website View All Posts