In an intriguing twist of events, former CNN anchor Don Lemon finds himself at the center of a legal storm, leading to questions about the intersection of journalism and activism. The controversy revolves around the FACE Act, a statute designed to protect places like abortion clinics and places of worship from being obstructed or disrupted. Currently, Lemon faces accusations related to violating this act. What makes this case fascinating is that Minnesota’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, errantly suggested that the act applies solely to abortion clinics, an assertion that doesn’t withstand even rudimentary scrutiny of the statute.
The situation for Don Lemon becomes even more layered with the consideration of his status as a journalist, albeit one with a well-known leaning toward advocacy journalism. Judges tend to tread carefully when journalists are involved, as the profession holds an esteemed place under the First Amendment’s broad umbrella of freedoms. Nevertheless, Lemon’s challenging role as a journalist who veers deeply into advocacy complicates the usual journalistic protection. This form of journalism blurs the line where factual reporting ends, and personal lobbying begins. It throws a wrench into assessing whether Lemon was merely documenting events or fueling them.
With Lemon’s participation in the incident under scrutiny, his actions on the day of the alleged offense come into sharper focus. Some believe his behavior more closely resembles that of a hype man than a neutral observer. Recently, an unsettling trend has surfaced where individuals involved in protests—including those known for radical escapades—drape themselves in the banner of journalism to dodge repercussions. This circumvention of responsibility has been noted among various factions, often in situations where distinct roles become convenient masks.
Courts now face the delicate task of untangling this mess. They must assess whether Lemon’s claim as a journalist holds water by examining his conduct against the journalistic standard. Notably, courts have increasingly scrutinized such claims, looking beyond superficial labels like “press” or “legal observer.” They seek to establish whether individuals were genuine chroniclers or active orchestrators in their circumstances. It’s akin to a seeing-eye dog acting as a seeing-eye guide; if it’s going down the alleyways of activism, it’s not exactly guiding where you might expect.
Don Lemon’s saga underlines the bubbling tension between genuine journalism and its advocacy offshoots. The court’s decision will likely offer a litmus test for future definitions of journalism in America, drawing the battle lines between reporting and rallying. Maybe for Lemon, a return to Mortimer Adler’s inter-school debates might be advisable, this time with clearer distinctions between being the umpire or the team captain in this convoluted game of media interpretation.
