Free Press — Only For Pros?
After seeing this article about police confiscating personal cameras at a Congressman's public townhall meeting with constituents (hat tip to Drudge), I have some questions for Ricochet's lawyers, historians and armchair philosophers.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....
First, what is the basis of the distinction between "speech" and "press" in the 1st Amendment? Is it merely a distinction between spoken word and written word? Or do journalists have legal rights beyond the rights of other citizens? If so, what qualifies a citizen as a member of "the press"?
Second, regardless of the Constitution or history, what are the de facto rights of non-journalists regarding cameras and recordings in public settings? Are there circumstances under which a press pass is necessary in a public setting?
Third, can police legitimately confiscate personal cameras for "security reasons"? If so, what is to stop them from claiming "security reasons" whenever they feel like it? And what reasonable security concerns could there really be with cellphones and digital cameras?
I sympathize with the policeman in that video. Presumably, he was acting under orders and trusted that his superior officers truly knew the specific laws he was enforcing on their behalf. But that raises another interesting, if ancillary, question. With such a massive and complex legal code, how responsible are police to be familiar with any laws they claim to be enforcing?
The whole situation stinks.
- Comment (42)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
Aaron, you're ringing bells! I worry about the same questions myself.
I have long opposed the idea that the press are special, or that they have any constitutional rights that the rest of us have. The focus of the debate, for me, is the shield law. Journalists want the same immunity as priests, lawyers, or doctors to protect their sources - but while the others get that immunity in exchange for keeping their conversations private, journalists want to publish the conversations.
Also, if they hold a public event, and invite the public ... they have no right to prevent the cameras.What part of "public" don't they understand?
As for the "security" angle, like any other police action, it may be prudent to do what they tell you at the time ... but if they abuse that power, they can be sued like anyone else. Sooner or later, we're going to have a working day to day definition of what constitutes a realistic security threat in different scenarios - we're probably not there yet. A few lawsuits will sharpen that definition, I suppose.
May '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
As a member of the *ahem* working media (oxymorons, anyone?) here's my thoughts. As some point there has to be a clear delineation between legitimate working press and public. Cameras from local TV and newspapers shouldn't have to jockey for position with folks who blog as a "citizen-journalist." It could just get too unwieldy. There is also the problem of the "George Allen moment." My prediction is that politicians will eventually bar all cameras in favor of pool feeds.
In the past the courts have usually said that whatever is observable from the street is fair game. But one man's fair game is now another's terrorist recon.
Jul '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
If cameras represent "free speech" or "freedom of the press," then why are We barred from taking them into courts, which are public?
Edited on Aug 25, 2011 at 7:59amMay '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
The courts have traditionally held that some rights supersede others and that given a choice between providing camera access and the right to a fair trial, the camera loses. If you were in the docket you'd want the same protection.
That does not mean that the press is barred, however. Reporters still have access to the court and no one screens or approves their work.
Jul '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
Then why do "reporters" have rights that others don't?
What makes one a "reporter[?]" Can't I be "reporting" for My Friends and Family?
May '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
If you make a paycheck doing it, you are a reporter.
Sep '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
EJHill
If you make a paycheck doing it, you are a reporter. · Aug 25 at 8:15am
"freedom of the press" I thought it referred to printing press. Spoken word -printed word. But now I find out it really had something to do with earning a paycheck. I guess next thing I'll be told is that only those who are earning a paycheck when speaking should enjoy freedom of speech. You are only free if your getting paid. That is a democratic principle one can sink his teeth into..
Dec '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
EJHill
If you make a paycheck doing it, you are a reporter. · Aug 25 at 8:15am
Would you care to think that over EJ? What about a student newspaper reporter for example.
Jul '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
What about a future paycheck?
I'm not a "reporter," but I want to record an event I think I could sell.
Oct '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
Those with power will always arrange things to their benefit. Steve Chabot is merely exercising the politicians prerogative. The first amendment is there to address exactly this kind of issue. EJ, you mention the paid press as the distinctive. How about the blogger? He earns his small income from banner ads and flash media. Is that not remuneration? Or is it the amount? The reporter who earns five figures is in, four figures or less is out?
Remember the words "slippery slope"? This is what we are seeing here. First guy in with a camera gets the best location... period! I, like you, EJ, carried a press pass for a few years. Really handy, especially covering politicians, Nixon, for instance. Times have changed, and the ability to disseminate information has been greatly democratized.
There will be nothing easy about adapting to these changes, but that is why there is a 1st amendment.
May '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
At some point you have to draw the line, don't you? What if 600 people all showed up to a Congressional Town Hall claiming that they were paid bloggers and demanding camera placements and preferential treatment?
Aug '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
EJHill,
I'm confused. You're saying that journalists deserve preferential treatments?
Are you saying that the Pamphleteers of old weren't "The Press?" The Samizdat weren't practicing freedom of "the press?"
I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any meaningful way to separate "the press" from "the public" when it comes to government.
Businesses can reserve the right to give access to whomever they wish, but government has no such authority.
Citizen journalism is "the press" in the most sacred, if not in the most professional, way.
Aug '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
Being allowed to photograph an event is not the same thing as preferential treatment.
The first amendment should protect the right to photograph. It does not promise that you'll get a good camera angle.
Nov '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
Then they, the supposedly "professional" journalists, and every other citizen would have to work it out. Democracy is not necessarily tidy.
BTW - where would the conservative movement be today if it wasn't for those unpaid bloggers doing it simply because they cared?
Dec '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
Foxman
EJHill
If you make a paycheck doing it, you are a reporter. · Aug 25 at 8:15am
Would you care to think that over EJ? What about a student newspaper reporter for example. · Aug 25 at 9:14am
Please pardon me for answering a question I was not asked. I am/was a reporter/editor of a college paper. In my experience, I've never had a hard time getting press credentials, being official recognized etc. I also carry the same responsibility for what is published under my name, a condition most bloggers or citizen journalists can legally bypass.
I think it boils to knowing your rights, especially open meetings laws. Event organizers from prom committees to Senate staffers will try to control the coverage every way they can and you have to know the law if you don't want to get bullied.
The bigger issue for college journalists (especially conservatives) is that if your paper is funded by the school, free speech lasts about as long as you can stay in the good graces of the administration and within the schools speech code.
Edited on Aug 25, 2011 at 12:30pmAug '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
This is a great conversation.
Aside from the issues on press credentialing, we need to step back. Consider Groseclose's study and the issue of how to wrench that 25% influence away from the liberal media. One of the ways will be the citizen journo/blogger . One of the pitfalls will be the gotcha types like the macaca /George Allen fabrication. The media's slimy use of that clip and the ink spilled was a stain. That the stain mattered not to the press brings us to the question of tactics in the gutter . This is where the established or traditional press is most vulnerable.
The press has traded away their rights by their perfidy. Trample over them in an effort to get the truth out.
Now as for the guy who rents the hall, he should be able to call the tune. If people complain, then don't go. If enough people don't go.....and so forth. They'll come out if they need the "press". Hopefully the desire for transparency will triumph and the sycophancy will fade. We need to defuse the part of politics that plays to the media, wishful thinking that.
Edited on Aug 25, 2011 at 11:49amAug '11
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
I suppose press passes for professional journalists provide them with the opportunity for better positioning - camera placement, backstage access and granted interviews etc. However, a peaceful citizen should be able to enter a public meeting, sit or stand where ever any other citizen is allowed to and to document the events via observation, written word or recorded media, so long as they are non-disruptive to the proceedings.
If this type of thing continues to happen then essentially we'll have state controlled media. You'll need state issued press identification to report on anything political and not soon after that it would be non-political issues. Bureaucrats would decide who gets to tell the story.
Edited on Aug 25, 2011 at 11:51amDec '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
We're making headway if congressmen don't automatically assume the cameras are coming out as a form of worship any more.
Dec '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
Jimmy Carter: What about a future paycheck?
I'm not a "reporter," but I want to record an event I think I could sell. · Aug 25 at 9:25am
I have to differ with EJ. I would say the litmus test for Press vs. Public is whether or not you are credentialed rather than paid. That is, officially recognized by the organizers as a member of the press or affiliated with a publication they deem above the fray, and this varies by event. This, however, in my experience, has a lot more to do with what you can bring into an event (cameras, microphones) and where you can go in that event, rather than what you take out with you (recordings/footage).
Dec '10
Re: Free Press — Only For Pros?
Misthiocracy
The first amendment should protect the right to photograph. It does not promise that you'll get a good camera angle. · Aug 25 at 11:28am
Your right, that is up to the folks organizing an event. It does no good for transparency to deny the millions of reader of the Wall Street Journal a clean and illustrative photograph so that a hundred bloggers can get a camera phone shot to post on a website none of us know about or can locate.