If there is video evidence it should be easy to decide for the court.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/don-lemon-appears-i...
https://youtu.be/s7jsQKRoNEY?si=gmHgnnxBrbgXR525
It was clearly not a protest but obstruction by others. And he was not taking part of the obstruction, just documenting it.
I can understand DOJ charging him with conspiracy if he took part of the planning, but arrasting him was probably not needed (whether conspiracy took part or not), as he didn't seem to disrupt the church.
The DOJ just wants to scare people out of protesting or reporting on crimes, score some points with their religious base, and "own the libs" by turning the FACE act around, probably in retaliation for the (IMO overcharging) of the "Pro Life Grandmother" aka Paula “Paulette” Harlow:
>“[The defendants] forcefully entered the clinic and set about blockading two clinic doors using their bodies, furniture, chains, and ropes,” the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia said.
The story includes a link to the entire livestream. You may be interested in the interview with protest coordinators before they enter the church.
I remember seeing an edited video on the order of 5 minutes long on Don Lemon's own channel that seems to be gone now, although the livestream is still there.
Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2].
I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it.
> than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE
This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor.
[1] https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/...
And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed.
> "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees.
They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution.
> If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response?
Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested.
Just to be clear, this is the ad hominem, which is moot. Even if this is true, it has no bearing on the case being discussed and the question is a foolish one for this silly political game you describe: firstly, it can easily be turned around on the asker and, secondly, it has an extremely obvious game theoretic answer of "yes" because that's the only option to get one's interrogator to continue with the actual discussion. (Thanks for proving the point.)
It’s always a good exercise to evaluate your opinion this way, it should help keep you honest about legal fairness.
You say that it matters for these silly political "gotcha!" games. I say it therefore does not matter. It is an ad hominem attack which has no basis in the discussion.
If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine. Others want to open it up. You are not the gatekeeper to the discussion and what paths it might take.
Sure, but to what end? What is the purpose of pointing this out? Even pointing it out to the person behaving in such a manner seems foolish: they're just as likely to change their mind as the person pointing it out.
> If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine.
It seems the act of disregarding the points being made by others so one can hint that their bias is clouding their judgement to see it the correct way shuts down discussions far more effectively than simply arguing from a certain perspective. As I said before, such an accusation can easily be turned around on the accuser; if you think through what happens there, the accuser just denies it the same as the accused would because that's the only option that moves on from the point which is only relevant to the political game. The entire game theory can be explained in a single sentence. It's not really an interesting game and the best outcome of it in the context of a greater discussion is for it to end as quickly as possible.
> Others want to open it up.
One might consider (perhaps by not being "so ingrained on one side that they can't conceive, comprehend, or concede") that the point of calling out a rhetorical ad hominem is to open the discussion to more critical thinking.
You mean like pointing out that the law is actually agnostic and it should be considered to be agnostic?
> the first amendment
In this case, the first amendment, as a matter of law, isn't relevant in the context of those who had their religious service interrupted: the service in question was not interrupted by the government. The first amendment concern in this case is whether or not Don Lemon's right to journalistic freedom is being infringed since he's the one who's actually facing criminal prosecution for actions which seem a lot like journalism.
> the FACE act
It appears that Don Lemon did nothing which violates this Act. I guess if you disagree with the judge who found there was no probable cause of such a violation for an arrest warrant, you're more than welcome to explain why. (I mean, surely it's not simply because you disagree with Don Lemon's politics, that would be embarrassing.)
But if you must know, I think it’s a long shot that he will be convicted, but he damn sure didn’t make it easy on himself. He should have followed his own advice on his livestream when he was in the car and said “I don’t think I should go in…”
This is the kind of crap minorities always have to put up with in the US. Cops can arrest you for things that are absolutely against the law and have you prove your innocence. It doesn't matter what the court thinks at Trump will field a huge range of lawyers to ensure the process is as painful as possible. His idea of justice is if you piss off the king he should have the right to behead you.
[0]: https://www.scottrlarson.com/blog/blog-resist-unsubscribe/
> In an unusual move that drew a rebuke from the chief federal judge in Minnesota, Patrick Schiltz, the Justice Department filed emergency applications to get Schiltz and then the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule the magistrate judge. Schiltz told prosecutors that if they disagreed with a magistrate judge's decision, they must instead seek an indictment from a grand jury in order to arrest Lemon.
> In a letter filed in court records, Schiltz wrote that Lemon and his producer "were not protestors at all."
> "There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so," the chief judge wrote.
Popular comments on the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ctuhv-cck) from within the first couple of days after upload make problems with the pro-Lemon narrative quite clear.
Not mentioned is that the interview with the activists discloses a clear plan to "make the [congregation] feel uncomfortable", and that Lemon's interviews were quite hostile and aimed at furthering the protesters' point of view. At one point he could be seen to lean on an interviewee while saying "don't touch me". The protesters did not leave when asked.
Everyone who watches the footage is encouraged to consider how they would perceive the actions if this had taken place at a mosque or synagogue rather than a church. It's curious that Reuters could apparently find several "Free press advocates [who] voiced alarm over the arrests", but not any freedom of speech advocates concerned with the congregation's right to freedom of association on private property.
It's also strange that the article goes into extensive detail about Lemon's background and similar actions by the Trump administration, but is silent about the apparent motivation for the choice of venue for the protest (the lead pastor, Jonathan Parnell, was suspected of having ties to ICE) which makes the action seem rather like harassment.
> "There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so," the chief judge wrote.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Pointing to a video is not providing evidence. However, I'm more than willing to watch a timestamped link and read an explanation of the evidence in your words (perhaps several, if required; I just don't want to spend a lot of time refuting this).
Occam's Razor suggests (really, screams at the top of its lungs) this is further political retaliation from an administration which is now infamous for its acts of political retaliation (among other things). Why would they be telling the truth this time? Further than that, why should any of this administration's evidence be trusted after the AI manipulation stunt? (Dismissing false evidence as a joke meme is not justification.)
This whole ICE thing is a psychological operation. It's media manipulation and all the people violently protesting are useful idiots falling for it, or they're feds in disguise instigating more violence to turn around and give more crackdowns.
Don Lemon is one of the chosen media elites. He can sexually assault people and nothing happens. He's a terrible human being, but nothing will come from this. It's all smoke and mirror.
Go outside and turn off your phones people.
No, it's real. The media didn't make it up, the people in the streets aren't crisis actors. Sometimes things actually happen. Sometimes what the media reports on is actually real.
To me this arrest looks like lawfare. It looks like the administration abusing its power to violate the first amendment.
Lincoln was not a good guy or pro-American (anti-speech, anti-due process), but he's viewed positively only because he won.
and as far as the Washington Compost, we know from the Church Committee the CIA likely has operatives in there. So unlike Lincoln, there was no real need to raid WaPo. It was likely just for show.
I have to imagine it's people with a Christian identity who sense on some base level that this is all deeply wrong, but can't reconcile their politics with the actual tenants of their faith. So they just fume and try to hide the uncomfortable truth from view. (I say this as a Christian who is utterly aghast at the state of the country. At least the Catholic leadership has the right idea.)
And flagged, yes. Because it's completely inappropriate to the discussion, which was already off topic. It's simply bashing a political outgroup without insight, which violates HN guidelines in multiple ways. It does not merit a counterargument.
If you actually believed the world were as you describe it, you would not be sitting behind your computer on HN in the first place.
What a ridiculous ad hominem. Perhaps they're hundreds of miles away from any of the cities being terrorized by ICE and otherwise have their own life to live.
While "outgroup" can technically just mean anyone the speaker doesn't identify with, applying it to the party in power creates a false equivalence. It frames the criticism as mere tribalism or bullying, rather than a legitimate response to the actions of those currently in power.
It’s hard to get behind the classification of the most powerful political movement in the country as a marginalized or "othered" group in this, or any context, really.
Lmao
Only a jackboot-lover would see strong similarities in peacefully protesting government actions, and violently attempting to overthrow Congress.
> Encouraging people to protest inside white churches feels deeply unproductive.
Wow, unabashedly racist, too.
In a church service? To what end does it make sense?
The whole thing was live streamed. They intentionally interrupted a religious worship service. You had children traumatized, crying. What idiot or group of idiots would think that is going to motivate the government to do anything except go after you with specific laws that were passed to protect religious gatherings from such things.
This type of tactic was not productive to whatever your cause is…it did damage.
There's already a predictable trend in political posts that do and do not get flagged, clear even without this feature addition.
Such a feature would either make the trend even more obvious, and/or perhaps encourage self reflection so as to not commit the sin of making contradictions in public.
> “so desperate to contend”
The tech talk here is embarrassingly shallow. Depth is now the rare exception. If I want deep dives, I’ll go see about some crabs. This place now exists to launder the tech worldview, and that’s an inherently political act. Pretending it isn’t doing that is political too.
Like most folks here nowadays, I primarily come for the politics. The difference is I’m not lying to myself about my posture.
I also respect the fact that this is run by an SV incubator and everything that entails. Out of all the discussion platforms, this one is still the most sane, for now. Moderation is a thankless job, and they do a pretty good job with that around here compared to all of the alternatives.
I am sure he and I disagree on most things, but I don't fault the primary moderator. In general, dang seems pretty laissez-faire. I am venting at the flag brigade: what news gets flagged, and more importantly what doesn't.
I come here to stick my thumb in the wind and see what the prevailing tech view is. As for the tech itself, I am more "if I learn something cool along the way, neat," so I guess I am here for the vibe as well. I just wish folks were more honest about what HN is (like you are being here). Things change; it's okay for them to change.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I don't even know where that is posted, I just see folks quote it all the time. I obviously don't abide, those were written at a different time on a different internet with a different HN.
NOTE: I slightly restructured this without noticing the reply. The poster below is not misquoting me in anyway.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's intentionally stochastic, outlining a preferred shape of topics and allowing exceptions that engage and promote novel and curious discussion.
These are novel and interesting times, no doubt, and yet there's still an exuberance of drum banging and closed minded repetition on various topics leading to many but not all of the current event threads being organically weighted down.
Just look at how many political comments they made. Especially the downvoted and/or flagged ones. They are horrendous. So many words spent justifying ICE murders and lying about how the victims were violent terrorists. They spend all day thinking about how best to downplay the egregious actions of the current regime, at one point writing how ICE agent's masks are just merely "face/neck warmers."
This isn't a person who should be taken seriously.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46773004 (now dead)
Dang is right when he says that every politically-charged commenter thinks their specific ideology is the one that’s oppressed here.
It immediately and completely refutes your position, so if you have read it then you have no excuse.
> I don't even know where that is posted, I just see folks quote it all the time.
It is in one of the links in the page footer.
> I obviously don't abide, those were written at a different time with a different HN.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The policy is there for a reason, and I'm confident that any of the moderators will happily tell you that it's meant exactly as seriously now as it was at the beginning. But you don't have to take my word for it; you can also email hn@ycombinator.com.
I literally do not care what the policy says. Must I say it that way? The policy
(1) is logically incoherent
(2) is not policed in an equitable way
(3) is used to launder a worldview to young tech workers just coming to hn
(4) ... do I need to keep going? because I can keep saying stuff
(5) is just random bits on a server