5 ms·
Curfew orders have exceptions for credentialed press. The law is on the side of journalists.
by evan_ 6y ago
Curfew orders have exceptions for credentialed press. The law is on the side of journalists.
- lostmsu 6y agoI bet the reason for these journalists ending up in the line of attack is not violation of curfew, but a violation of a lawful order to disperse. I am impressed so many people on HN do not seem to understand the concept and reasoning behind it.
- pwinnski 6y agoThe first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America supersedes local ordnances, and journalists absolutely do no have to disperse when police issues such an order to the general public.
- lostmsu 6y ago> journalists absolutely do no have to disperse when police issues such an order to the general public The first amendment speaks nothing about who can be where. It just denies government the right to prosecute people for making statements.
- evan_ 6y ago> The first amendment speaks nothing about who can be where. It just denies government the right to prosecute people for making statements. "just" free speech? Might want to check your pocket constitution again. The first amendment also protects the free press- and the freedom to assemble. (Not to mention religion and to petition for redress of grievances)
- chasd00 6y agogeez 3 weeks ago all those freedoms were widely thrown out the window yet now they are unassailable?? /done with HN for today
- lostmsu 6y agoAdmittedly, I have no pocket constitution, but brisk search only talks about peaceful assembly, which riots are not. Besides, you completely ignore the "who can be where" point.
- chasd00 6y agoi find that very hard to believe. Crowds are ordered to disperse when things are getting dangerous or a curfew put in place by an elected official has passed. I don't see any plausible reason why dispersal wouldn't apply to the whole crowd and only a subset.