4 ms·

Unprecedented? Really? I just googled "reporter charged with trespassing" and it sure as heck does not seem that unprecedented. I am not sure why so many people

Unprecedented? Really? I just googled "reporter charged with trespassing" and it sure as heck does not seem that unprecedented. I am not sure why so many people think that just by calling yourself a journalist you somehow put yourself in an elevated status with regards to the law. There is no such thing as "Freedom of the Press" it's just another name for the first amendment. Edit: I know this happened in Canada and the 1stA is not directly relevant to this case but my point is the same. There is not press freedom to trespass in Canada. There is a reason the other reporters stayed behind.

xxpor 9y ago
Well the first amendment is irrelevant here, considering the incident occurred in Canada. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is more relevant.
tux1968 9y ago
Being a journalist should not put you above the law, but the law should be careful to protect freedom of the press. It is a foundational element of western society -- even though we're talking about Canada, which doesn't have a first amendment.
- cpncrunch 9y ago
  It's a freedom to write whatever you want without being harassed by the government. It doesn't give you any freedom to break any laws while doing that (including harassment or libel). I was more concerned about the case of Antoine Trepanier, who was arrested for harassment for doing normal journalism. However it appears that the charges have now been dropped.
shaki-dora 9y ago
There is a "press privilege" explicitly recognised by the courts protecting journalists from being compelled to name their sources. Some US states have also codified this principle in so-called "shield laws". That's one of the more obvious counterexamples. Being a journalists can also play a significant role when judges have to balance different rights: "Trespassing", for example, is obviously not as absolute as you make it out to be. If your life is in danger you can pretty much trespass as much as you want without any legal risk. "Informing the public" is a slightly weaker justification than survival, but it is a generally recognised public good and will be considered, especially in victimless crimes such as trespassing. Law isn't an algorithm, or at least not a trivial one. It needs to capture the full breath of human life, with its limitless supply of nuance.
- thinkloop 9y ago
  By extension, if it were fully illegal, then this would be a good time to check whether the law needs updating. Laws are not commandments. Saying something like it doesn't matter whether it's wrong or right "it's the law", misunderstands what law is.

xxpor 9y ago

Well the first amendment is irrelevant here, considering the incident occurred in Canada. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is more relevant.

tux1968 9y ago

Being a journalist should not put you above the law, but the law should be careful to protect freedom of the press. It is a foundational element of western society -- even though we're talking about Canada, which doesn't have a first amendment.

cpncrunch 9y ago
It's a freedom to write whatever you want without being harassed by the government. It doesn't give you any freedom to break any laws while doing that (including harassment or libel). I was more concerned about the case of Antoine Trepanier, who was arrested for harassment for doing normal journalism. However it appears that the charges have now been dropped.

shaki-dora 9y ago

There is a "press privilege" explicitly recognised by the courts protecting journalists from being compelled to name their sources. Some US states have also codified this principle in so-called "shield laws". That's one of the more obvious counterexamples. Being a journalists can also play a significant role when judges have to balance different rights: "Trespassing", for example, is obviously not as absolute as you make it out to be. If your life is in danger you can pretty much trespass as much as you want without any legal risk. "Informing the public" is a slightly weaker justification than survival, but it is a generally recognised public good and will be considered, especially in victimless crimes such as trespassing. Law isn't an algorithm, or at least not a trivial one. It needs to capture the full breath of human life, with its limitless supply of nuance.

thinkloop 9y ago
By extension, if it were fully illegal, then this would be a good time to check whether the law needs updating. Laws are not commandments. Saying something like it doesn't matter whether it's wrong or right "it's the law", misunderstands what law is.