4 ms·

I agree with you this probably won't be easy. But the video of the CNN arrest is quite damning in my non-lawyer opinion. They had press credentials. They clearl

I agree with you this probably won't be easy. But the video of the CNN arrest is quite damning in my non-lawyer opinion. They had press credentials. They clearly and calmly identify themselves as press. They clearly and calmly state that they will move back to wherever the police want them. They are arrested 1 by 1 over the course of several minutes.

anewdirection 6y ago
The CNN arrest was not violent, not were they held long. The reporter later said everyone was nice, and they had orders to arrest anyone in the path of the crowd who did not immediately disperse. If there is an example of the police acting badly, or treating press differently, this is not it.
- dharmab 6y ago
  They were released quickly because the president of CNN was on the phone with the Governor of Minnesota within minutes. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/politics/tim-walz-minnesota-cnn-arrest/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/politics/tim-walz-minnesota-c...
- thephyber 6y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't think this comment should be voted down. I suspect it's exactly the orders police are given when the order to disperse a crowd/protest is given.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    It’s downvoted because it’s arguing that because the arrest was short and not violent, it’s ok. That’s not how the law works; An unlawful arrest is an unlawful arrest.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      They were not saying "it's ok". Those words are getting put into their mouth by other people. They were saying it's not an example of "police violence", which was the allegation in the lawsuit.
- jbeam 6y ago
  An arrest doesn't need to be violent for it to be a bad act. At that point they were surrounded and would have had to push through the police to "disperse." They repeatedly asked police officers where they should go and were met with silence, so it's not clear where they were supposed to disperse to. They were arrested without the police saying a word as to why they were arresting them. That screams of "I'm trying to figure out a way to arrest you, but I can't think of a reason. I'm going to do it anyway." Police should not be arresting journalists (or citizens!) for no reason. Being released quickly doesn't suddenly make the original act okay. It just makes it so it doesn't get worse.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  Well what were they arrested for, exactly? I mean even if charges weren't filed and even if there was only the thread of violence and not actual violence, police still must have cause to arrest you, and I haven't heard an explanation that isn't very well debunked by the live video. They even ask, and nobody answers them.
mehrdadn 6y ago
I'm having trouble finding the clip you're talking about (the link next to CNN redirects to AP News and says "PAGE NOT FOUND" for me?), but in any case: the thing is, I don't think (though IANAL, please do correct me if this is wrong!) it legally matters one bit that they had press credentials and clearly identified themselves as such. Being a journalist, as far as I know, doesn't give you some kind of immunity to anything. My understanding is that if they get treated better, it's only because the executive does it out of respect for the press or to steer clear of the line and build a more clear-cut case. But legally, I expect they'll just be treated like any random people. I imagine police will make a case that it's not realistic to negotiate with each person on an individual basis when dealing with crowds and that they have to do things in bulk as much as possible. And if you want to win, you can't realistically argue that they shouldn't have the power to do things en masse, so the only viable remaining argument I can see is that, even with that consideration, their actions were still somehow unconstitutional. It's possible one could make such a case for some of these incidents, but if the CNN case was merely one of being "arrested" as you describe (and not e.g. getting badly injured etc.), it doesn't sound like a winning case. The legal system seems to pretty much treat a mere arrest as a no-op in many situations... treating it otherwise requires clearing a really high bar as far as I've been able to tell.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Here is the video of the CNN reporter arrest. I have included the description of the video below to help people find it: A CNN reporter and crew have been arrested live on air while covering the Minneapolis protests over the killing of George Floyd. Black correspondent Omar Jimenez had just shown a protester being arrested when about half a dozen white police officers surrounded him. Mr Jimenez told the Minnesota State Patrol officers: “We can move back to where you like”, before explaining that he and his crew were members of the press, adding: “We’re getting out of your way.” The journalist was handcuffed and led away alongside a producer and camera operator for CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ&t=138s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ&t=138s accompanying story from same publication's site: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cnn-reporter-crew-arrested-live-tv-minneapolis-riots-george-floyd-a9538541.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cnn-report...
thephyber 6y ago
I know exactly how the police will be defended: "20 minutes before the video you saw, police announced that the protest was closed and declared an unlawful assembly for the purposes of public safety. All people remaining after that warning were in violation of the law and the officers followed their instructions to clear the area."
cabaalis 6y ago
IANAL. I've always thought of freedom of press as the right to publish. Is it now expanded to the right to be and go where others cannot lawfully go?
- petrocrat 6y ago
  The 1st amendment covers freedom of assembly as well. > Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Press implies covering events and publishing about them. If that's not convincing enough, they spell it out in right to assemble, anyways. A press corps can assemble to cover events.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > Press implies covering events and publishing about them. I don't think it implies that covering events has some kind of immunity. It's still subject to any general restriction on the assembly. The government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. See https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php
- smileysteve 6y ago
  Beyond the first amendment is the 4th estate doctrine, origin ating from British concepts. While less legally defensible it is much of the reason why the BBC, FCC exist, why we have camera crews embed with troops. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
- geomark 6y ago
  This is also my understanding and why I don't agree with people who consider the press a protected class that can refuse to comply when the police delcare an unlawful assembly and order everyone to leave. That doesn't mean the police can act with impunity. It just means that the press are mistaken to think they can seek legal remedy when they are arrested for failing to comply with the order to clear out.

anewdirection 6y ago

The CNN arrest was not violent, not were they held long. The reporter later said everyone was nice, and they had orders to arrest anyone in the path of the crowd who did not immediately disperse. If there is an example of the police acting badly, or treating press differently, this is not it.

dharmab 6y ago
They were released quickly because the president of CNN was on the phone with the Governor of Minnesota within minutes. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/politics/tim-walz-minnesota-cnn-arrest/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/politics/tim-walz-minnesota-c...
thephyber 6y ago
Unfortunately, I don't think this comment should be voted down. I suspect it's exactly the orders police are given when the order to disperse a crowd/protest is given.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  It’s downvoted because it’s arguing that because the arrest was short and not violent, it’s ok. That’s not how the law works; An unlawful arrest is an unlawful arrest.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    They were not saying "it's ok". Those words are getting put into their mouth by other people. They were saying it's not an example of "police violence", which was the allegation in the lawsuit.
jbeam 6y ago
An arrest doesn't need to be violent for it to be a bad act. At that point they were surrounded and would have had to push through the police to "disperse." They repeatedly asked police officers where they should go and were met with silence, so it's not clear where they were supposed to disperse to. They were arrested without the police saying a word as to why they were arresting them. That screams of "I'm trying to figure out a way to arrest you, but I can't think of a reason. I'm going to do it anyway." Police should not be arresting journalists (or citizens!) for no reason. Being released quickly doesn't suddenly make the original act okay. It just makes it so it doesn't get worse.
TallGuyShort 6y ago
Well what were they arrested for, exactly? I mean even if charges weren't filed and even if there was only the thread of violence and not actual violence, police still must have cause to arrest you, and I haven't heard an explanation that isn't very well debunked by the live video. They even ask, and nobody answers them.

mehrdadn 6y ago

I'm having trouble finding the clip you're talking about (the link next to CNN redirects to AP News and says "PAGE NOT FOUND" for me?), but in any case: the thing is, I don't think (though IANAL, please do correct me if this is wrong!) it legally matters one bit that they had press credentials and clearly identified themselves as such. Being a journalist, as far as I know, doesn't give you some kind of immunity to anything. My understanding is that if they get treated better, it's only because the executive does it out of respect for the press or to steer clear of the line and build a more clear-cut case. But legally, I expect they'll just be treated like any random people. I imagine police will make a case that it's not realistic to negotiate with each person on an individual basis when dealing with crowds and that they have to do things in bulk as much as possible. And if you want to win, you can't realistically argue that they shouldn't have the power to do things en masse, so the only viable remaining argument I can see is that, even with that consideration, their actions were still somehow unconstitutional. It's possible one could make such a case for some of these incidents, but if the CNN case was merely one of being "arrested" as you describe (and not e.g. getting badly injured etc.), it doesn't sound like a winning case. The legal system seems to pretty much treat a mere arrest as a no-op in many situations... treating it otherwise requires clearing a really high bar as far as I've been able to tell.

aspenmayer 6y ago
Here is the video of the CNN reporter arrest. I have included the description of the video below to help people find it: A CNN reporter and crew have been arrested live on air while covering the Minneapolis protests over the killing of George Floyd. Black correspondent Omar Jimenez had just shown a protester being arrested when about half a dozen white police officers surrounded him. Mr Jimenez told the Minnesota State Patrol officers: “We can move back to where you like”, before explaining that he and his crew were members of the press, adding: “We’re getting out of your way.” The journalist was handcuffed and led away alongside a producer and camera operator for CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ&t=138s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ&t=138s accompanying story from same publication's site: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cnn-reporter-crew-arrested-live-tv-minneapolis-riots-george-floyd-a9538541.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cnn-report...

thephyber 6y ago

I know exactly how the police will be defended: "20 minutes before the video you saw, police announced that the protest was closed and declared an unlawful assembly for the purposes of public safety. All people remaining after that warning were in violation of the law and the officers followed their instructions to clear the area."

cabaalis 6y ago

IANAL. I've always thought of freedom of press as the right to publish. Is it now expanded to the right to be and go where others cannot lawfully go?

petrocrat 6y ago
The 1st amendment covers freedom of assembly as well. > Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Press implies covering events and publishing about them. If that's not convincing enough, they spell it out in right to assemble, anyways. A press corps can assemble to cover events.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > Press implies covering events and publishing about them. I don't think it implies that covering events has some kind of immunity. It's still subject to any general restriction on the assembly. The government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. See https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php
smileysteve 6y ago
Beyond the first amendment is the 4th estate doctrine, origin ating from British concepts. While less legally defensible it is much of the reason why the BBC, FCC exist, why we have camera crews embed with troops. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
geomark 6y ago
This is also my understanding and why I don't agree with people who consider the press a protected class that can refuse to comply when the police delcare an unlawful assembly and order everyone to leave. That doesn't mean the police can act with impunity. It just means that the press are mistaken to think they can seek legal remedy when they are arrested for failing to comply with the order to clear out.