Line Between Witness and Participant — Tightened Version

Late last night, Don Lemon was taken into custody in Los Angeles in connection with a protest that disrupted a church service in Minnesota earlier this month. Federal prosecutors say those who entered the church crossed a legal line. Lemon says he was there as a journalist, documenting events, not participating in them.

Lemon was in California covering the Grammy Awards when federal agents arrested him shortly after 11 p.m. in the lobby of a Beverly Hills hotel as he was leaving for an event. Court records tied to the arrest were not immediately available, but he is expected to appear in federal court as the case proceeds. The arrest followed an earlier attempt by prosecutors to bring charges that a magistrate judge declined to move forward, citing insufficient evidence at the time while inviting prosecutors to pursue the case through a grand jury instead.

And now we are left with the question that matters.

When does a reporter stop being a witness and become a participant?

The Constitution protects more than one right at a time. It protects free exercise of religion. It protects private property. And it protects a free press whose job is to stand in uncomfortable places so the public does not have to guess what happened there. Those rights coexist, and when they collide, courts must draw the line.

The government’s argument is straightforward. Protesters do not have the right to interrupt worship on private property. Churches, like homes and businesses, are not public arenas for confrontation. Officials argue that forcing entry into a service violates property rights and interferes with worshippers’ constitutional protections. And once a gathering becomes unlawful, anyone entering alongside it risks becoming part of the disruption.

Justice Department officials have indicated charges would follow, arguing Lemon had no right to be on church property if the protest itself was unlawful. Prosecutors say the disruption impeded worshippers’ rights, creating a competing constitutional obligation the government must protect.

Lemon’s defense is equally simple. Journalists cover protests by going where protests occur. Their presence is observation, not endorsement. Reporters arrive when tensions are highest precisely because those are the moments the public most needs to see clearly.

In video he later posted, Lemon can be heard saying he was there to photograph events, not participate. His attorney argues charging a reporter for being present sets a dangerous precedent. If showing up becomes grounds for prosecution, journalists cannot do their jobs. He further argues prosecutors are focusing on demonstrators and reporters rather than the confrontation involving federal agents that preceded the protest.

The legal path has already been complicated. Prosecutors initially attempted to charge several individuals connected to the protest, including Lemon, but a magistrate judge found insufficient evidence at that time. Prosecutors then pursued the matter through a grand jury, leading to the arrest in Los Angeles, suggesting they believe they now have enough evidence to proceed.

Charging journalists criminally in the United States is rare. When it happens, courts must determine whether reporting crossed into unlawful participation. Those questions often lead to prolonged legal battles because of the First Amendment implications involved.

And that line matters not just for Lemon, but for every protest and confrontation where cameras arrive alongside anger and fear. Once that line shifts, it shifts for all reporters.

Democracy depends on two things happening at once: citizens exercising their rights, and journalists documenting what happens when those rights collide. Without witnesses, rumor replaces fact and power operates unseen.

The danger appears when proximity becomes guilt. When being present is treated as participation. When documentation is mistaken for endorsement.

If reporters can be charged simply for being present, covering protests becomes legally hazardous. Journalists must ask whether showing up today could lead to handcuffs tomorrow. And when reporters hesitate to show up, the public sees less and knows less.

But the other side cannot be ignored. The First Amendment is not a license to enter private property or disrupt religious services. Journalists are protected when they report, not when they participate. Courts will now have to decide where Lemon stood in that moment.

A court will decide Lemon’s case.

But the country must still answer the larger question.

Do we want reporters close enough to show us what is really happening, even when reality is loud and uncomfortable, or only distant enough that everyone feels safe while the truth is filtered through distance and spin?

That choice will outlast this news cycle.