Don Lemon’s Position ‘Is So Stupid,’ He Better Lawyer Up: Harmeet Dhillon [WATCH]

Republican strategist Marc Lotter and civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon raised questions about Don Lemon’s role during a protest at a church, arguing that his own words suggest participation rather than detached reporting and that the First Amendment does not protect involvement in criminal activity.

The discussion centered on comments Lemon made during coverage of the incident, particularly his use of inclusive language that appeared to place himself among the protesters.

Lotter said Lemon’s phrasing raised legal and ethical concerns about whether he crossed the line from observer to participant.

“Don Lemon used the word we, not protesters, not they, not them or their preferred pronouns.

He said, We does that put him on the line as a protester and lose his first amendment media coverage,” Lotter said.

Dhillon expanded on that point by explaining that the First Amendment does not provide blanket protection when a person actively takes part in unlawful conduct, even if that conduct is livestreamed or framed as journalism.

She compared Lemon’s actions to a hypothetical criminal scenario to illustrate the distinction.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“This position of his is so stupid that I was trying to figure out how to put it in layman’s terms,” Dhillon said.

“Imagine you have a bank robbery that’s being planned by a number of criminals. They’re crossing state lines, are using the wires. And then a podcaster says, Well, let me embed myself in here and come along for the ride and live stream the crime that would not be protected by the First Amendment.”

Dhillon said that disrupting religious services and harassing worshippers falls outside protected speech, regardless of political motivation.

“And so it is a crime to disrupt and harass and make people in a church or any house of worship feel unsafe in this country,” she said.

She added that participation in planning or executing such actions carries legal consequences, even if the individual claims a media role.

“And when you’re part of that planning and show up and ride along and and laugh outside about and make commentary outside about how disrupting and putting people in fear is literally part of protest and Part of the plan,” Dhillon said.

Dhillon emphasized that legal conclusions have not been reached and noted the presumption of innocence, but said the situation serves as a warning for journalists covering volatile events.

“You know, we are not reaching conclusions. Now, of course, everybody is entitled to the presumption of innocence,” she said.

“But if I were giving advice to a journalist about this, which I have done in the past, I would say, do not participate in a crime actively.”

Lotter added that Lemon’s conduct during the incident, including making comments while children were present and visibly frightened, underscored the seriousness of the situation and why it should not be dismissed as routine protest coverage.

WATCH: