admin
Federal agents arrested former CNN anchor Don Lemon in Los Angeles late this week in connection with an anti‑ICE protest that disrupted a church service in St. Paul on January 18, and prosecutors say he faces federal counts including alleged conspiracy to deprive rights and a FACE Act violation. The arrest has thrust a combustible mix of religion, immigration enforcement and media activism into the national conversation, and it’s only fair to note the government says the charges stem from conduct inside a house of worship, not from ordinary press coverage. This development is factual and serious, and Americans should not fumble for reflexive outrage until the record is clear.
Megyn Kelly was blunt and right to point out that there is a line between reporting and participating, and that barging into a religious service to amplify a protest is not automatically shielded by the First Amendment. Conservatives who defend the rule of law are not “anti‑press” for insisting that churches have federal protections under the FACE Act and that reporters don’t get a hall pass to break the law. Kelly’s reaction — and her insistence that the facts on video look like participation, not neutral coverage — echoes what many Americans who respect religious liberty are seeing.
As predictable as rain in April, Jim Acosta and Julie K. Brown erupted in performative fury, casting the arrest as an assault on journalism and, in Acosta’s case, lobbing racialized accusations at the president. Acosta called the move “outrageous” and claimed the First Amendment was under attack, while Brown invoked the chilling reminder, “First they came for the journalists,” urging fierce public resistance. Their chest‑beating exposes how far too many in the press instinctively prioritize their own caste privileges over the rights of ordinary Americans to worship in peace.
But let’s be honest about the scene inside that church: multiple accounts and reporting say congregants were frightened, blocked from exiting and even injured in the chaos created by the protest. This isn’t a purely academic dispute about access — the people in the pews have rights, and federal law exists to protect them when a protest crosses into intimidation and obstruction. Those are not conservative talking points; they are the pragmatic defense of private property and religious freedom that every free society must uphold.
The media’s reflexive defense of Lemon exposes a double standard. When left‑wing activists use journalism as a veneer for disruption, outlets and pundits rush to sanctify the disruption instead of soberly asking whether laws protecting worship and safety were violated. TheWrap and other outlets cataloged the chorus of outrage among press advocates, but furious tweets don’t erase video evidence or the lived fear of parishioners — and neither do they give anyone immunity from prosecution if a grand jury and prosecutors believe a crime occurred.
It’s also true that federal judges and career prosecutors have pushed back at points in this case, which makes the situation complicated and not one for melodrama. Magistrate judges in Minnesota had previously declined to sign off on certain charging documents, yet the Justice Department persisted and federal agents executed arrests after further review. Conservatives who respect both the judiciary and law enforcement should welcome process: if the government overreached, the courts will check it; if the evidence supports charges, then enforcing the law is the right outcome.
Americans can simultaneously defend the free press and insist on the rule of law and the sanctity of worship. If the Left’s reaction to this arrest is to reflexively weaponize “press freedom” as a shield for impunity, then conservatives must push back hard — not because we hate reporters, but because we love ordinary Americans’ right to pray without being terrorized. Let the facts, the courts, and the American people judge this case, and don’t let the privileged media class rewrite common sense into an excuse for unlawful disruption.
