Before I respond let me say this, I do not support constitutionalism. I was not trying to build a moral or ethical case off of a legal framework. I simply said “First Amendment rights” to start from a point that is commonly held by the majority of the American public.

…but — morally — they are mutually reinforcing because the protesters swam “out of their lane” with regards to another’s autonomy in a public space.

Are you implying that the reporters were morally wrong for being where they were? I am a bit confused.

…but your tact serves needlessly to alienate a separate legal analysis from its overall moral framework and context.

Honestly, I am a bit confused about your whole response. So, let me state what I believe to clarify anything:

Those reporters property rights in their goods, i.e. camera and bodies, were violated. Plain and simple. Those protestors’ aggressive actions cannot be justified.