6 ms·

When I was reading this I was wondering how is this any different than a TV station showing up with a film crew? They're recording audio the same as the guy wit

by KWD 17y ago

When I was reading this I was wondering how is this any different than a TV station showing up with a film crew? They're recording audio the same as the guy with his cell phone. In the end, it's all about intimidation by the Boston Police.

jamesbressi 17y ago
It's worse than intimidation. In the end it is about bending the law to impede on your rights and justice, not far from "totalitarianism"--where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.
jamesbritt 17y ago
There is typically distinctions made between mere citizens and Official Journalists, something I don't get. Look at discussions about bloggers and their rights to withhold information, or express political views, or failing to disclose financial incentives regarding matters they blog about. There seems to be a desire to neatly and authoritatively define what a "blogger" is[0], and to figure out what special rules apply. I rarely see anyone insist that US citizens have these basic rights, no matter whether you call what they do journalism, blogging, or whatever. I'd like to think that would be true in this case as well, but I bet the same duality applies; some people get to be in a special class called "journalists" or "reporters", and so get more rights and privileges than Joe Smoe doing basically the same thing. ([0] The best is when the MSM talk about "bloggers" as if this was some well-defined group, with official leaders and common interests.)
- jrwoodruff 17y ago
  This distinction is true when it is in regards to so-called 'shield laws,' which allow journalists to protect their sources. Without these laws, journalists can (and have) be held on obstruction of justice charges or worse. For the laws to work, though, they have to differentiate between journalists (as in those reporting news) and 'citizen' witnesses who simply don't want to cooperate in an investigation. When it comes to recording news events, as in this article, any audio or video recorded in a public venue (and that is not sold commercially, if I remember my media law class accurately) is perfectly legal, regardless of who records it. Someone shooting video through your living room window from the middle of the street is, theoretically, legal, as it is in view from a public space. If that person steps on to your lawn and shoots the same video, however, that is invasion of privacy and probably trespassing as well. While these videos should be completely legal, the laws governing this type of activity are usually state and local. It sounds like the law on the books in Boston is too broad and needs to be challenged. Of course, IANL; I have a journalism degree and worked in newspapers for 5 years. As a side note, someone should build a site for theses 'watching the watchers' videos. I'd be a fan.
  - kjhgbhnm 17y ago
    So who is an official journalist? Do you have to work for a newspaper? As fulltime staff Does the paper have to be a public company, listed on the NYSE or can you be a journalist for a local free paper? Perhaps it would be easier to just make FOX the official state broadcaster
    - timwiseman 17y ago
      I do not know why this was downmodded. The last line was somewhat snarky (I like Fox personally), but these are valid questions and form a genuine and important debate in many circles.
      - jamesbritt 17y ago
        I was about to post much the same questions (minus the Fox sentiment). How does one decide who is a journalist, and who is not? What makes a something a publication; what makes that publication a newspaper or a news source? Is it like jazz or pornography; you know it when you hear it or see it, but can't really define it? I can understand wanting some distinction with regards to obstruction of justice, but I also worry that bestowing special protections on select groups is prone to political manipulation.
      - kjhgbhnm 17y ago
        Its the same problem with the difference between pornography and art. We need some way of having official artist or author licenses so we know which is which. ps. Sorry for the misunderstanding - where I live we have a state broadcasting corporation and FOX is the beacon of a free press.
    - jrwoodruff 17y ago
      Sorry for the delayed response here, but I feel it is important to reply to this question. Previously, as shield laws were determined on a state-by-state basis, the answer varied. However, congress is currently working to adopt a federal shield law, which apparently will define a journalist as such: (iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity— (I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and (II) that— (aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical; (bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; (cc) operates a programming service; or (dd) operates a news agency or wire service; So by this law, amateur journalists do not count, which is truly unfortunate. Of course, that doesn't exclude amatuer journalists from observing and reporting, it merely excludes them from lawfully being able to not reveal their sources in a court of law. Read more on this topic here: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-jo...

by KWD 17y ago

jamesbressi 17y ago

It's worse than intimidation. In the end it is about bending the law to impede on your rights and justice, not far from "totalitarianism"--where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

jamesbritt 17y ago

There is typically distinctions made between mere citizens and Official Journalists, something I don't get. Look at discussions about bloggers and their rights to withhold information, or express political views, or failing to disclose financial incentives regarding matters they blog about. There seems to be a desire to neatly and authoritatively define what a "blogger" is[0], and to figure out what special rules apply. I rarely see anyone insist that US citizens have these basic rights, no matter whether you call what they do journalism, blogging, or whatever. I'd like to think that would be true in this case as well, but I bet the same duality applies; some people get to be in a special class called "journalists" or "reporters", and so get more rights and privileges than Joe Smoe doing basically the same thing. ([0] The best is when the MSM talk about "bloggers" as if this was some well-defined group, with official leaders and common interests.)

jrwoodruff 17y ago
This distinction is true when it is in regards to so-called 'shield laws,' which allow journalists to protect their sources. Without these laws, journalists can (and have) be held on obstruction of justice charges or worse. For the laws to work, though, they have to differentiate between journalists (as in those reporting news) and 'citizen' witnesses who simply don't want to cooperate in an investigation. When it comes to recording news events, as in this article, any audio or video recorded in a public venue (and that is not sold commercially, if I remember my media law class accurately) is perfectly legal, regardless of who records it. Someone shooting video through your living room window from the middle of the street is, theoretically, legal, as it is in view from a public space. If that person steps on to your lawn and shoots the same video, however, that is invasion of privacy and probably trespassing as well. While these videos should be completely legal, the laws governing this type of activity are usually state and local. It sounds like the law on the books in Boston is too broad and needs to be challenged. Of course, IANL; I have a journalism degree and worked in newspapers for 5 years. As a side note, someone should build a site for theses 'watching the watchers' videos. I'd be a fan.
- kjhgbhnm 17y ago
  So who is an official journalist? Do you have to work for a newspaper? As fulltime staff Does the paper have to be a public company, listed on the NYSE or can you be a journalist for a local free paper? Perhaps it would be easier to just make FOX the official state broadcaster
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    I do not know why this was downmodded. The last line was somewhat snarky (I like Fox personally), but these are valid questions and form a genuine and important debate in many circles.
    - jamesbritt 17y ago
      I was about to post much the same questions (minus the Fox sentiment). How does one decide who is a journalist, and who is not? What makes a something a publication; what makes that publication a newspaper or a news source? Is it like jazz or pornography; you know it when you hear it or see it, but can't really define it? I can understand wanting some distinction with regards to obstruction of justice, but I also worry that bestowing special protections on select groups is prone to political manipulation.
    - kjhgbhnm 17y ago
      Its the same problem with the difference between pornography and art. We need some way of having official artist or author licenses so we know which is which. ps. Sorry for the misunderstanding - where I live we have a state broadcasting corporation and FOX is the beacon of a free press.
  - jrwoodruff 17y ago
    Sorry for the delayed response here, but I feel it is important to reply to this question. Previously, as shield laws were determined on a state-by-state basis, the answer varied. However, congress is currently working to adopt a federal shield law, which apparently will define a journalist as such: (iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity— (I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and (II) that— (aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical; (bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; (cc) operates a programming service; or (dd) operates a news agency or wire service; So by this law, amateur journalists do not count, which is truly unfortunate. Of course, that doesn't exclude amatuer journalists from observing and reporting, it merely excludes them from lawfully being able to not reveal their sources in a court of law. Read more on this topic here: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-jo...