Some commentators loudly proclaim the January 18, 2026, disruption of a church service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota is a “test of the First Amendment” right of speech.
Activists entered the church, shouted demands, and effectively halted the service. Arrests have followed.
Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was present, filming the event and later posting the video on YouTube, claiming it was an act of journalism. Lemon defended the actions by invoking the First Amendment. Was it?
What many commentators miss is that, at best, the legal cases to follow are not about “the First Amendment” right of free speech. At best, the cases will be about a conflict between the First Amendment rights of both parties.
At worst, Lemon’s actions are not protected “free speech” at all, but a violation of other laws.
People forget that the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution only restrains the federal government from infringing, not private entities. In other words, there are no equivalent First Amendment protection rights for people when the actor is a private entity.
Churches are private property, not public spaces. Entering without permission or refusing to leave when asked constitutes trespass, which isn't shielded by the First Amendment. In Minnesota, this could lead to civil or criminal charges; protesters here ignored requests to leave, turning their presence into unlawful intrusion. Even passionate political messages don't override property rights, just as one can't protest in someone's home.
In fact, Minnesota Statute § 609.28 makes it a misdemeanor to use threats or violence to prevent religious acts, and a gross misdemeanor to physically obstruct access to a religious establishment.
If proven, coordinating to disrupt (as alleged against Lemon and others) elevates charges beyond simple speech. These laws are content-neutral, applying regardless of the protest's message, so they withstand First Amendment scrutiny.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
This protects expressive activities like protests, including those with political messages, as long as they are "peaceable," from federal government suppression.
Since the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment protections have been extended to state and local governments as well.
Critically, however, First Amendment protections do not exist citizens when dealing with private property owners, including social media providers.
For journalists like Lemon, the First Amendment safeguards newsgathering and reporting, allowing coverage of public interest events without government censorship.
However, these rights are not absolute. Speech can be regulated based on time, place, and manner—especially on private property, where owners can set rules and exclude unwanted expression.
Protests on public sidewalks outside a church might be protected, but entering the building without permission crosses into unprotected territory.
In this incident, activists and Lemon claimed First Amendment cover for their entry and actions, but legal experts can, and will, argue that disrupting a private event isn't "peaceable assembly" and doesn't qualify as protected speech.
For the press specifically, while journalists have broad rights to report from public spaces, they lack a "special access" exemption from general laws like trespass; mere presence with a camera doesn't immunize against charges if they're on private property without consent.
Separately, the First Amendment also prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This grants an "absolute right" to worship according to one's conscience without interference, making houses of worship protected spaces for religious practice.
In the Cities Church case, the disruption infringed on congregants' free exercise by halting the service and creating fear, which courts view as an impermissible burden on religious rights.
Churches, as private property, can control access during services, even if generally open to the public.
Leaders retain authority to remove disruptors to preserve the sanctity of worship. While protesters have speech rights, they can't use them to suppress others' religious expression.
Federal law reinforces this through the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which criminalizes force, threats, or physical obstruction interfering with religious services (extended beyond clinics to places of worship).
Organizers in this incident were charged under FACE, underscoring that religious gatherings aren't public forums subject to open protest.
Free expression ends when it violates others' rights or breaks neutral laws not targeting speech itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment