Right To Free Press Doesn't Mean The Press Gets Unfettered Access
from the free-press-means-something-different dept
Late last year, we found it silly that three journalists were suing the NY Police Department, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated because the police refused to give them press passes. As we noted, freedom of the press doesn't mean that anyone has to give those journalists access. If I remember correctly, that case was eventually settled with the journalists being given press passes again, but a similar case in California has gone all the way to a ruling, with the court finding that the First Amendment does not automatically grant journalists access (via Romenesko). In this case, a photojournalist was trying to photograph a car accident scene, and police barred him from the scene and eventually handcuffed him. The judge found that while the press should be allowed to have the same access as the public had, the public isn't granted access to crime scenes, so it's entirely reasonable for the police to order the press away from a crime scene. Of course, there are separate issues here which weren't addressed, including that the police didn't just ask him to leave, but at one point said "You don't need to take these kind of photos." One could make an argument that statements like that could go over the line.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: access, free press
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The courts got it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. I agreed with you. Not sure why you're implying otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, I've heard all sorts of questionable things from police, both personally and secondhand. Once, a police offer threatened to arrest me merely for requesting his badge number (he had been swearing at me for no particular reason, after a different incident, long story, but yes, that was the sole reason he was threatening to arrest me). Police officers are unfortunately often really deputized bullies. But this statement doesn't actually seem in any way controversial..........?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haha
These aren't the stories you're searching for....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(TPB was clear about that critical media was also welcome, but they didn't want to spend their free time helping those who spread outright lies)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are pro free speech for themselves, not for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See, you're a liar, yourself. Free speech just means you can say what you want (provided it isn't an untruth that cause harm to another in any way, shape or form), not that you get to listen to someone else's free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? The same thing? Then you must mean that the TPB is the government there. Wow, I didn't know that. You're so smart, Tor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't have access to public roads now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We don't have access to public roads now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We don't have access to public roads now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We don't have access to public roads now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We don't have access to public roads now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We don't have access to public roads now?
How's that? Oh, I see. People break traffic laws on public streets so all public streets are now "crime scenes" and nothing that a cop does on one can be recorded. Somebody should have told that to the person who recorded the cops beating Rodney King. I bet you'd love to get your hands on that person, wouldn't you?
Thank you, move along, nothing to see here.
You wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We don't have access to public roads now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We don't have access to public roads now?
Suffice to say taking gruesome photos of someone else's misery and suffering for personal financial gain is a disgusting abuse of "freedoms". I doubt the intentions of the law were to cover this kind of use and thus I think that potentially bending the law to prevent this abuse was a good thing. Notice I say potentially because it is questionable that law was bent or broken to prevent this action, primarily because we are talking about the freedom of speech, not the freedom to nose into others personal business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reasoning here bothers me as it seems to constitute chipping away at the first amendment. If the press has no more rights than the general public, then what's the point of including "the press" in the first amendment at all? Doesn't that interpretation pretty well gut the first amendment as far as the press is concerned? The equal protection clause would mean that they still got the same treatment as the general public, so what's the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The police create exclusion zones around crime (and accident) scenes to permit them to properly do their jobs. Exactly how does that violate the constitution? After all, if everyone trampled around every crime site, would it not hurt other's rights to a fair trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And why they are allowed to met out "street justice"? The officer in this case handcuffed the reporter and positioned him out in the sun by the side of the road by passing traffic for at least half an hour before finally releasing him. Shouldn't handcuffing be reserved to situations where the individual is going to be incarcerated? This sounds like a modern day version of "the stocks of public pillory" used for public humiliation. Maybe the cops could start doing this for other minor offenses, like jay walking, too. Just cuff them up to a light pole in public for a while before finally writing them a ticket and cutting them loose. Let people verbally abuse them for a while to teach them a lesson (that's what happened to the reporter). How would you like to maybe see something like that done to your mom? People could walk by and call her all kinds of names (and maybe even assume she'd been busted for prostitution or something). Fun, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, what apparently every person on this site is failing to realize is that IT WAS A CRIME SCENE!!!!!!!!!
Joe Schmoe with a camera can't just waltz into a crime scene and start snapping photos. Even if Joe is an accredited journalist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? How's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Property
Just because the property is public doesn't mean the public has access to it. The White House is public property. As is the Pentagon and CIA Headquarters. Good luck making the argument that law enforcement can't restrict access to those facilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EVER
And the pictures? They were of an arriving ambulance and police car. Not the kind of thing that would invade anyone's privacy.
Finally, the accident was also visible to the general public driving by who could also take pictures, but the officer seems to have taken exception to a reporter doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EVER
"Don't ever come here again to take these kinds of photos."
Or
"You don't need to take these kind of photos."
Those are two very different statements. Another possiblity, and in my mind is more plausible, is that what he said was "Don't come here again to take these kinds of photos," and someone took "journalistic license" to add the word "ever" to the officer's statement. Thereby making the officer out to be the villain.
Is there corruption in police departments around the country? Of course there is, but that doesn't mean that ALL COPS are corrupt. Which of course ties a parallel to the original argument of whether journalists should have access to ALL public information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EVER
"Don't ever come here again to take these kinds of photos."
Or
"You don't need to take these kind of photos."
It has to be one or the other? The officer could have made only one statement? You need to explain that logic.
...what he said was "Don't come here again to take these kinds of photos," and someone took "journalistic license" to add the word "ever" to the officer's statement.
If you're going to essentially accuse Henry K. Lee (the Chronicle staff writer) of lying, then I think you should provide some evidence to back it up. Otherwise it appears that you may be the one lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EVER
And nobody here was saying so, either. So why are trying to imply that they were?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An interesting Juxtaposition
However, as Mike points out, while the Constitution gives US CITIZENS (only) the right to say and/or print whatever we want (slander and libel notwithstanding), it DOES NOT mean that they have to be ALLOWED to print EVERYTHING.
So why is this a juxtaposition? Because freedom of speech also means freedom to NOT SPEAK; which is different from the 5th Ammendment in subtle, yet specific ways.
In other words, just because you have the right to publish a photo of me, doesn't mean that I have to LET you take that photo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An interesting Juxtaposition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police and news photographers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
Cuffing the moron who's wasting time when they've got an accident to clear up is perfectly acceptable. In the sun? Are you kidding me? It's a HIGHWAY. Since when is there shade? Exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
In Oregon? All the time. :P
Ok, ok, I know this didn't happen in Oregon, I just couldn't help myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
Where is there shade? In the back of one of the patrol cars. Of course, that wouldn't serve the pillory purpose, would it?
Exactly.
Indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
Just like you, eh?
"Police Line = Do not cross. No Press, No Citizens."
There was no line. Why are you trying to say there was?
"Freedom of the press does NOT mean you can walk into the CIA's office and read through their papers."
And no one here has said so, either. So all you can do is trot out straw men and call people names?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What body? You seem to be making stuff up.
There, happy?
That you're making stuff up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People should have access to see anythign in a public place
So for example while the police beat some guy on the road, you are not allowed to take pictures and they have the right to detain you because it's an active crime scene.
Police should never be able to run someone off off public property unless they are comitting a crime. Handcuffs used on anyone by the police that is then not charged should be considered a crime. Police should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen, and it's just a shame that they seem to always get away with anything they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]