Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morrigi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-missouri-protesters-block-journalists-press-freedom.html

"The first amendment protects your right to be here and mine." ~ the journalist.

As pithy as that is... its not true.  Journalists have no extra protections when it comes to gathering information.  The government isn't allowed to stop you from publishing information once you have it, but anyone can show you the door if you trespass or otherwise break the law gathering said information.

Of course it wasn't private property, so ordinary citizens trying to use force to remove him would be a (fairly minor) crime.  But not because of the first amendment, just because that's a crime normally.  Kind of embarrassing that a journalist of all people doesn't understand how freedom of speech works.

It can be argued to be a First Amendment violation that staff at a state university were attempting to silence the media in a public space with physical force.

No... no it couldn't.  Again, taking pictures isn't a form of expression.

State employees preventing the press from reporting on an issue in public is a First Amendment issue.

[EnigmaticHat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-missouri-protesters-block-journalists-press-freedom.html

"The first amendment protects your right to be here and mine." ~ the journalist.

As pithy as that is... its not true.  Journalists have no extra protections when it comes to gathering information.  The government isn't allowed to stop you from publishing information once you have it, but anyone can show you the door if you trespass or otherwise break the law gathering said information.

Of course it wasn't private property, so ordinary citizens trying to use force to remove him would be a (fairly minor) crime.  But not because of the first amendment, just because that's a crime normally.  Kind of embarrassing that a journalist of all people doesn't understand how freedom of speech works.

It can be argued to be a First Amendment violation that staff at a state university were attempting to silence the media in a public space with physical force.

No... no it couldn't.  Again, taking pictures isn't a form of expression.

State employees preventing the press from reporting on an issue in public is a First Amendment issue.

No it isn't.  And there's no such thing as a "first amendment issue", its a violation or it isn't.

First of all, these aren't active duty cops we're talking about here.  State schools are already fairly independent from the rest of the government in practice, these are low level employees, and they were off the job when this happened.  Furthermore, they never claimed to have any legal authority, nor did they make their position relevant in any way.  To treat them as representatives of the government here would be stretching the spirit of the law past its breaking point.

Second of all... the first amendment doesn't protect journalists who are taking pictures.  It, in fact, doesn't protect ANYONE who is taking pictures, because that is not speech.  I don't know why I have to keep repeating this.  A journalist isn't entitled to get quotes, they aren't entitled to get an interview, they aren't entitled to pictures or video or soundbites or anything.  That's not what freedom of the press means; it means that once they have those things, the government can't stop them from publishing them.  Now, stopping them from getting those things can be (and in this case, is) a crime.  But for reasons that have nothing to do with the first amendment.

[Morrigi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-missouri-protesters-block-journalists-press-freedom.html

"The first amendment protects your right to be here and mine." ~ the journalist.

As pithy as that is... its not true.  Journalists have no extra protections when it comes to gathering information.  The government isn't allowed to stop you from publishing information once you have it, but anyone can show you the door if you trespass or otherwise break the law gathering said information.

Of course it wasn't private property, so ordinary citizens trying to use force to remove him would be a (fairly minor) crime.  But not because of the first amendment, just because that's a crime normally.  Kind of embarrassing that a journalist of all people doesn't understand how freedom of speech works.

It can be argued to be a First Amendment violation that staff at a state university were attempting to silence the media in a public space with physical force.

No... no it couldn't.  Again, taking pictures isn't a form of expression.

State employees preventing the press from reporting on an issue in public is a First Amendment issue.

No it isn't.  And there's no such thing as a "first amendment issue", its a violation or it isn't.

First of all, these aren't active duty cops we're talking about here.  State schools are already fairly independent from the rest of the government in practice, these are low level employees, and they were off the job when this happened.  Furthermore, they never claimed to have any legal authority, nor did they make their position relevant in any way.  To treat them as representatives of the government here would be stretching the spirit of the law past its breaking point.

Second of all... the first amendment doesn't protect journalists who are taking pictures.  It, in fact, doesn't protect ANYONE who is taking pictures, because that is not speech.  I don't know why I have to keep repeating this.  A journalist isn't entitled to get quotes, they aren't entitled to get an interview, they aren't entitled to pictures or video or soundbites or anything.  That's not what freedom of the press means; it means that once they have those things, the government can't stop them from publishing them.  Now, stopping them from getting those things can be (and in this case, is) a crime.  But for reasons that have nothing to do with the first amendment.

That is absolutely false. There is very clear precedent that communicative photography in public spaces is protected by the 1st Amendment.

[Akura]

Criticism of Newegg.com's service or the service of our operations partners. (FedEx, UPS, Paypal, etc.)

Seriously? I have every right to criticize them, especially the way they delivered my order.

[IcyTea31]

What's the point of a comment section if users aren't allowed to speak their mind there?

[Morrigi]

Exactly. Oh well, I posted it on reddit because why the hell not.

[Orange Wizard]

What's the point of a comment section if users aren't allowed to speak their mind there?

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
REASON GIVEN: INCITEMENT OF DANGEROUS IDEAS

[Sergarr]

Went on an excursion to T-10 today.

I don't think I've ever seen so many cables in one place before. Lots of old ELT monitors, too.

Also apparently our army has a lot of demand for (monocrystalic?) small pure molybdenum glasses (mirrors?), making the scientists wait for their larger versions. Wonder why.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

The First Amendment's protections are broader than speech. Freedom of Assembly is also guaranteed. Now, it's possible that you're understanding the claim to be "You can't remove me from this spot because of the First Amendment", but it seems a lot more sensible to interpret it as "You can't possibly have authority to remove me, because the same rule that forbids the only possible authority over this spot from removing you also forbids them from removing me." And, of course, it's worth noting that there were a number of school officials participating in the protest, and if any of them were doing so in their capacity as employees of a publicly-funded university, government action makes the First Amendment directly relevant instead of being a tangential sort of thing.

I just wouldn't be so quick to assume they don't know what they're talking about.

[Arx]

For reference, communicative photography is definitely protected.

It's not protected if you're taing pictures just because you can, though.

[Tack]

Criticism of Newegg.com's service or the service of our operations partners. (FedEx, UPS, Paypal, etc.)

Seriously? I have every right to criticize them, especially the way they delivered my order.

What's the point of a comment section if users aren't allowed to speak their mind there?

Maybe they have trouble justifying it in the advertising budget if people are allowed to say bad things?

Have had little dodgies like that before- one of the companies got all of us to upvote "promotional reviews" so that the negative ones wouldn't show.

[Baffler]

Went on an excursion to T-10 today.

I don't think I've ever seen so many cables in one place before. Lots of old ELT monitors, too.

Also apparently our army has a lot of demand for (monocrystalic?) small pure molybdenum glasses (mirrors?), making the scientists wait for their larger versions. Wonder why.

Lenses made from molybdenum are used in a lot of laser-related applications, maybe that's it.

[Morrigi]

So, the fuckwit professor involved in the University of Missouri scandal just posted this on twitter. Jesus Christ.

[hops]

So, the fuckwit professor involved in the University of Missouri scandal just posted this on twitter. Jesus Christ.

Doesn't look legit.

[Descan]

Joined in November of 2015, puts "Social Justice Warrior" on their profile? Yeah. Probably a troll. Not to mention the tweets