“Liberals generally wish to preserve the concept of “rights” for such “human” rights as freedom of speech, while denying the concept to private property. And yet, on the contrary, the concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.” —Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty
Last month, Don Lemon—a once-popular journalist who was fired from CNN in 2023—accompanied a group of anti-ICE protesters when they entered the Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, to disrupt a worship service. On January 29, 2026, Lemon was arrested and taken into custody by federal agents in connection with the incident. He was released the next day. Lemon contends that his First Amendment right—namely, the right of a free press—was violated by the federal government. These are the facts as reported, and we will leave them here.
Back to the Basics
Although the First Amendment of the US Constitution restricts the federal government from abridging the right of a free press, there is an even more fundamental right—one that resolves the issue regarding Lemon, along with other claims to rights: the right to property.
So, before assessing Lemon’s actions, it helps to review the legal framework involved and then address the fundamental libertarian ethics regarding rights.
First, the right of a free press. This right simply means that the government cannot abridge anyone’s right to publish—to convey any message, utterance, or idea. It was added to the US Constitution to stop the government from censoring an author’s right to detail government activities, including facts, opinions, and downright lies.
This right does not create a class of individuals—reporters or journalists—who are its exclusive benefactors. No, this right is to be enjoyed by all. In addition, the press pass, which is often considered the mark of authenticity, while granting specific access, does not demarcate who is guaranteed the right to publish.
Certainly, private entities hand out press passes to grant privileged access to certain people. But such privileged access is not covered by the freedom of the press and is valid only on the property of the issuer.
Additionally, the government issues press passes to certain individuals. These are also grants of access to specific events, such as White House briefings or crime scenes. Although this appears to create a credentialed class with special rights, there is no such class regarding the right to publish under the amendment.
The Fundamentals
Stated briefly, no one has a right to enter my property without my permission—no one. This is an ethical claim, not a statement of statutory law, and it reflects the conception of rights grounded in property ownership.
A press badge issued by the government or a private entity does not convey a special right to enter my property and trespass. Should someone with a press pass hear a commotion in my house or on my property, they are not granted permission to cross my property line to observe and publish what they would have seen or heard. That includes Don Lemon, with the right of property extending, obviously, to churches.
That a church may have a welcoming door does not mean the church and its grounds are somehow public property. The building and grounds are controlled by those who control the church. The same holds for a business. Just because the government has granted itself powers over certain property does not make the government’s action ethical.
Let us assume I live near Cleveland and decide to hang a Steelers flag in my front window on game day. Neighbors—ardent Browns fans—begin gathering on the street, plotting how to remove the flag. Don Lemon walks up to them and hears their plan: they are going to rush through my front door and rip the flag from my window. This would be a clear violation of my right to property and an act of aggression. Though the scene may make for a newsworthy story, Lemon has no right to enter my property along with the hooligans. He violates my rights with his first step over my property line.
Lemon could remain on the public street and report the event from that vantage point. But crossing a property line is crossing the line. As noted by Rothbard above, within libertarian ethics, there is no right that trumps the right to property.
Freedom of Religion
Another First Amendment right seemingly at play is freedom of religion. It prohibits the federal government from establishing—or authorizing—a state religion or prohibiting the exercise of any religion. It is a limit on government, so it does not prevent Don Lemon from participating in an action that disrupts a church service. In such cases, only property rights are violated.
Summary
In the libertarian system of ethics, Don Lemon would have committed an act of aggression when he violated the church’s right to property. Since being a reporter or journalist conveys no special privilege, his trespass is simply a violation of property and Lemon should suffer the consequences.
A clear concept of property rights is the resolution to many issues, such as the actions of Don Lemon this past January. Instead of arguing over legalities and subordinate rights, resorting to the fundamental right of property clarifies both the issues and the ramifications. Rothbard would have agreed.
