Crossroads Podcast: Are All ‘Activist’ Journalists Created Equal?

When Don Lemon greeted the anti-ICE protestors, he cheerfully — on camera — brought them coffee and donuts before they invaded a worship service at the Cities Church, in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The former CNN anchor was, they agreed, joining them “on the frontlines” in the immigration wars. He was one of them, but he was also an “independent” journalist.

During a recent “Crossroads” podcast (“Lemon-scented wars about about modern ‘journalism’”), host Todd Wilken and I discussed news coverage of that protest while focusing on Lemon’s role. We returned to this topic in this week’s podcast to stress the First Amendment issues raised by Lemon’s arrest by federal agents. They argue that he violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act — which could, for first offenders, lead to a sentence of up to $10,000 in fines and six months in prison.

What does a law that protects abortion facilities have to do with worship in religious sanctuaries? Here is a summary, care of the Justice.gov website, which makes it clear that the FACE Act of 1994:

… prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services or to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. It also prohibits intentional property damage of a facility providing reproductive health services or a place of religious worship. FACE authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief, statutory or compensatory damages, and civil penalties against individuals who engage in conduct that violates the Act.

Is Lemon guilty?

Writing for The Hill, media critic Becket Adams mentioned the highly symbolic refreshments served before the protestors crashed the church service:

Before his friends stormed into the Sunday service, shouting and screaming at congregants — including crying children — Lemon recorded himself handing out coffee and donuts to the demonstrators.

“The freedom to protest” is what the First Amendment is all about, Lemon said during the livestream. Although the First Amendment does protect the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, but it does not contain a supposed right to harass women and children in their places of worship.

Following the disruption, in which Lemon repeatedly shoved his microphone into the pastor’s face after being told to leave multiple times, the former CNN anchor concluded his livestream by asking viewers to like and subscribe to his channel.

For Lemon, here’s the bottom line: He says he was a journalist “on the front lines,” embedded with protestors whose actions were the subject of his reporting. In addition to the coffee and donuts, the lifestream suggests that he took part in discussions of which church to invade and the details of what to do during the protests.

During the first “Crossroads” podcast on this topic, I asked if Lemon was acting as:

— A journalist?

— An anti-ICE activist working in cooperation with the protestors? In other words, he was a co-conspirator in a protest that violated a federal law. …

— An “activist” journalist who, in terms of “letting his freak flag fly” stance, was giving his small choir of liberal online viewers precisely the content that they wanted to see and hear?

— An activist journalist who, even though he streamed live video content appearing to show his cooperation (even strategic input) with the anti-ICE protestors, is now claiming that he was “just doing his job” an old-school, fair-minded journalist? Thus, terrible people who want him punished can all %^& %$#! Is that clear?

With the arrest of Lemon, it now appears that two of the biggest questions in modern journalism will end up in court and, in light of the strong First Amendment content in this case, maybe even the U.S. Supreme Court

The questions: What is “journalism”? Who is a “journalist”?

In its coverage of the arrest, the Associated Press offered this summary:

Lemon, who was fired from CNN in 2023, has said he has no affiliation to the organization that went into the church and that he was there as a journalist chronicling protesters. …

Since he left CNN, Lemon has joined the legion of journalists who have gone into business for himself, posting regularly on YouTube. He hasn’t hidden his disdain for Trump. Yet during his online show from the church, he said repeatedly, “I’m not here as an activist. I’m here as a journalist.” He described the scene in front of him, and interviewed churchgoers and demonstrators.

Obviously, Lemon did not hide his personal and political bias during his livestream video.

However, in the marketplace of modern journalism — as described by George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley on The Megyn Kelly Show (YouTube video here) — many influential scholars, activists and newsroom managers now proclaim that definitions of “objectivity,” “fairness” and even “accuracy” are up for grabs. I made that same point throughout my Religion & Liberty essay: “The Evolving Religion of Journalism.”

Ah, but are all “activist journalists” created equal, or are some of them more equal than others? Maybe it depends on their content of their resumes and the ZIP codes of the courts hearing these cases?

Lemon, you see, is not alone. What happens to other activist journalists who take part in almost identical events, only with — so to speak — the political tables turned?

The FACE Act protects abortion facilities and churches. In her interview with Turley, Kelly (a lawyer) asked what would happen if she played the Lemon role in a different legal drama, one in which pro-life activists invaded an abortion facility and confronted medical personnel and their clients? Would elite mainstream press leaders, and judges with pro-Lemon views, consider her an “independent” journalist whose actions transcended the details of the FACE Act?

What if journalists from another independent news operation, perhaps LifeSiteNews, met with protesters planning to invade an abortion facility, going so far as to discuss sites for such a raid and what to do once inside? Perhaps while providing cheerful banter along with coffee and donuts? Would they have the same rights as Lemon, even though they had never worked for CNN?

In the age of smartphones with high-definition cameras, what about other activists who take part in protests while filming the events and doing interviews for their websites? Consider, for example, the actions of “citizen journalists” during in the Jan. 6, 2021, invasion of the U.S. Capitol. Could they make the same First Amendment claims as Lemon, even though they had never worked for CNN?

During the podcast, I went further, noting that even the most radical activists involved American life have First Amendment rights, even neo-Nazis. You can look it up.

If leaders of the KKK ever opened their own “news” website, would their “independent” journalists be immune from FACE Act charges if they provided “coverage” during an invasion of, let’s say, a worship service at the Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina? Would they have the same rights as Lemon, even though they had never worked for CNN?

It’s clear that Lemon was acting as an “independent” journalist, while also participating in a protest that violated the FACE Act. It will be interesting to see how judges handle this case, knowing that legions of “activist journalists” (on the cultural right and left) will be paying close attention.

After all, what is “journalism” these days?

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.