9 ms·

This is because Black Lives Matter™, and because black lives matter. This isn’t a hyper escalation against freedom of the press, per se, it’s an escalation of p

This is because Black Lives Matter™, and because black lives matter. This isn’t a hyper escalation against freedom of the press, per se, it’s an escalation of police on citizen violence that came about when police felt threatened when folks got a little extra vocal about how the racist cops boys club has little to no accountability when harming citizens they’re supposed to protect. I think this narrowly focuses on transgressions against journos. What the YoY stonks increase on Americans shot by rubber bullets?

underseacables 6y ago
When a journalist steps beyond being a journalist and turns into an activist, of course they’re going to get arrested if they break the law. Just because someone is a journalist does not give them a pass from breaking the law.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  > Just because someone is a journalist does not give them a pass from breaking the law. I’m entirely on the side of real journalism so it was interacting to see some people that thought a press badge meant they didn’t need to also follow police orders.
  - pas 6y ago
    Not following police order is grounds for arrest, not for getting a riot shield bashed into one's face.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      I don't know about the US, but here in Canada not following police orders is not by itself grounds for arrest. It has to be a lawful order, not whatever the police fancies at the moment. The police cannot for example say "stop filming or I will arrest you" and be able to legally justify that arrest in the court of law. https://globalnews.ca/news/6233399/supreme-court-montreal-escalator-handrail-ruling/ https://globalnews.ca/news/6233399/supreme-court-montreal-es...
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        It was a dispersal order to leave a riot so the crowd can be controlled, not an order to stop filming. There’s no other legal and humane way to deal with rioters amongst a crowd. Even if you aren’t being violent or breaking anything, you have to leave when told to do so.
        pas 6y ago
        Let me copy my comment here too - sorry for the spam. "In the video the police had control. There was absolutely zero need to escalate. They were trying to punish and intimidate the crowd instead of trying to disperse or control it. That should cost the commanding officer's job." The professional way is to identify the instigators/leaders in the crowd and extract them one by one. Also to constantly move the crowd street by street - toward less narrow places. > You have to leave when told to do so. And if you don't they might arrest you. Standing there is no cause for smashing faces. They can simply grab the closest persons to the police line, bring them behind the line, arrest them. No need to lash out. This gets the message across. If the crowd starts to escalate, sure, water jets. But even that's usually completely unnecessary. Just pick up the trouble makers one-by-one, usually that means less than a dozen people. Because if there really is an organized fanatical crowd then the police would likely withdraw, like they did in Seattle "zone".
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        It's not, which is why you see people arrested this way getting released without charges. It's an intimidation tactic, and the officers face zero consequences for employing it. "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" and all that.
        smnrchrds 6y ago
        Toronto police did very similar things during the 2010 G20 Toronto summit protests. Then chief of Toronto Police is now a cabinet minister. I don't want to insinuate that this kind of behaviour does not happen in Canada. It certainly does, but it doesn't make it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX0BbLc_PIk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX0BbLc_PIk
    - passerby1 6y ago
      Can officer give some absurd order just as cause to arrest someone?
      - pnw_hazor 6y ago
        Generally, yes. Victims of this tactic are required to obey the absurd orders and then seek remedy from the courts afterward. There are exceptions related to orders to break the law, put oneself or others into danger, and so on. For example, if you resist arrest, the underlying charge may get dropped for lack of evidence but the resisting arrest charges may remain. Though, the resisting arrest charges (or obstruction charges) may get dropped too depending on the prosecuting agency's policies.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    It depends on the police order. Order someone to step to the side for public safety? Probably alright. Probably. Unless it's obvious that what they really mean is "Step so you can't see what I'm about to do." Order someone to stop filming? Spot-check your First Amendment training and get back to me. Or give that order again, on camera.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  Breaking the law like filming police violence for example: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/minneapolis-protests-omar-jimenez-arrested-newday-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/minneapolis-protest... Watch the video and tell me how that arrest was justified.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    What was the person filming arrested for? I know many in Seattle were arrested for violating curfews or dispersal orders, and proceeded to claim that they were arrested for filming. They weren't arrested for filming, they were arrested because they harbored ill-conceived views that declaring oneself a journalist exempted them from curfews and orders to disperse and proceeded to violate them.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      > Jimenez could be seen holding his CNN badge while reporting, identifying himself as a reporter, and telling the officers the crew would move wherever officers needed them to. An officer gripped his arm as Jimenez talked, then put him in handcuffs. > Police told the crew they were being detained because they were told to move and didn't, one member of the CNN crew relayed to the network. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arrested/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arres... If you can simply not imagine the police arresting someone for no reason, or for challenging their unlawful assertion of authority, or so they can beat up protesters more effectively away from the watchful eyes of the press, no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. But please, consider that police misbehaviour is at the very least a possibility.
      - manfredo 6y ago
        > Police told the crew they were being detained because they were told to move and didn't, one member of the CNN crew relayed to the network. Right, they were violating an order to disperse or a curfew. Again, being a journalist doesn't bestow some special rights that lets you ignore the police when they issue an order to disperse or set a curfew. When people are looting and burning stuff down, the law has provisions to let the police say "this is out of hand, the only way we have to restore peace is to tell everyone to get out of the area". And when people ignore those orders they're violating the law and subject to arrest. And so are CNN's journalists. Being a journalist doesn't bestow any special rights. You can disagree with whether it was appropriate to order people disperse in this situation. But what is certain is that your previous comment was spreading falsehood: they weren't arrested for filming police, they were arrested for ignoring an order to disperse or a curfew. I'd come off as a lot less deceptive if you were transparent about the real reason for the arrest in your previous comment. It's 40 minutes old at the time of my writing this so you have at least an hour to edit it.
- pas 6y ago
  Yes, well, of course, indubitably, those pesky activists with press passes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pti6ZiH7dQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pti6ZiH7dQ The age old crime of filming crime.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  This argument would be valid if the arrested journalists were in fact breaking the law, but it's not the case - the vast majority of the arrests ended up with prosecutors declining to press charges as the detainees were not breaking any laws. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/us/protests-lawsuits-arrests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/us/protests-lawsuits-arre... has some overview, of course the actual pdf linked in the original article has more detail as well.
- jerry1979 6y ago
  How many of the arrested journalists "stepped beyond" their duty? It appears that the police harmed journalists during the journalists' regular course of duty: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/31/journalists-blinded-injured-arrested-covering-george-floyd-protests/5299374002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/31/journa...
- ska 6y ago
  The implicit assumption here is that those journalists who got arrested did so because they broke the law, not because of misbehaviour on the part of the police. There seems to be at least enough evidence of the plausibility of the latter that the assumption is far too strong to offer without evidence.
everdrive 6y ago
>What the YoY stonks increase on Americans shot by rubber bullets? What is a YoY stonk
- willis936 6y ago
  It is a year-over-year stock, as typed on r/wallstreetbets.
  - garyfirestorm 6y ago
    A man/woman of culture amongst us
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    This interaction demonstrates the risk of taking Reddit slang out of its native context.
- hyperman1 6y ago
  I assume YoY is the year over year increase. Stonk mystifies me too, maybe some typo? Update: stonk=slang for bombardment, according to a quick google.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    stonk = stock in memespeak
  - jjcm 6y ago
    stonks = stocks in internet slang. Mostly via r/wallstreetbets
- astura 6y ago
  "YoY" is "year over year" in finance terms, it just some comparison of data from one year to data from the previous year. "Stonks" is an intentional misspelling of "stocks" which is a meme word used humorously (like "pwn") and it implies that the speaker doesn't understand financial markets
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Why would you assume that cops are racist? Especially when a lot of them are black themselves?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  This comment is much more inflammatory than it needs to be.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    What do you mean? Parent comment was inflammatory by slandering anyone who works in an entire profession with no basis. Asking him why is not inflammatory.
- outworlder 6y ago
  Because we have looked at the statistics.
  - asguy 6y ago
    Which statistics?
  - jimmygrapes 6y ago
    Which statistics are these, please provide! They must be both very detailed and very massaged to get a result as generic as "cops are racist" (a mindset that requires significantly more information than provided by mere statistics to identify).
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Here's one pretty interesting result: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.h... > The largest-ever study of alleged racial profiling during traffic stops has found that blacks, who are pulled over more frequently than whites by day, are much less likely to be stopped after sunset, when "a veil of darkness" masks their race. > The Stanford team decided to repeat the analysis using the much larger dataset that they had gathered. First, they narrowed the range of variables they had to analyze by choosing a specific time of day -- around 7 p.m. -- when the probable causes for a stop were more or less constant. Next, they took advantage of the fact that, in the months before and after daylight saving time each year, the sky gets a little darker or lighter, day by day. Because they had such a massive database, the researchers were able to find 113,000 traffic stops, from all of the locations in their database, that occurred on those days, before or after clocks sprang forward or fell back, when the sky was growing darker or lighter at around 7 p.m. local time.
manfredo 6y ago
There's a strong argument to be made for police accountability and conduct. But this post seems to complete ignore the actions of demonstrators and the journalists (often self-proclaimed and self-employed) embedded within them. Look at the disparity between Portland and Minneapolis with respect to the rest of the country: New York has 20 times the population yet only half the journalist arrests. Portland has the same number of journalist arrests and New York but only 1/12th the population. These are order-of-magnitude differences, in cities that happened to have widespread rioting. And from a more firsthand perspective, I can say that in my hometown of the Seattle metro I never had witnessed the same level of chaos. Armed demonstrators cordoned off a several blocks of the city and declared it off limits to police, and successfully did so for almost a month. Thus is something I have never witnessed before. Nor have I ever witnessed widespread looting outside of Seattle. I live in Bellevue and stores across the street from single family homes were being looted. I saw people walking out of Bellevue Square mall with stolen stuff in broad daylight as though it was completely normal. Neither of these were things I witnessed during the Michael Brown protests or other demonstrations against police conduct. Both the data and my lived experiences indicate a correlation between more extreme behavior among protestors and more arrests. If we could point to demonstrable differences in the criteria police use for arrests you may have a point. But presently I see little reason to conclude that the disparity in arrests in 2020 are due to policing changes rather than the behavior of demonstrators.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  I don't have any memory in my lifetime of a credentialed CNN reporter being arrested live on air in front of his camera crew on US soil until this year. I think it is rare that the singular instance of misbehavior is caught on live video feed. I would have to assume that there were many, many similar cases that weren't captured on live cable news.
- aesclepius 6y ago
  > Both the data and my lived experiences indicate a correlation between more extreme behavior among protestors and more arrests. I think there's a false attribution of 'extreme behavior' with 'protestors' primarily. feel there are a significant number of people who took advantage of the protests to loot and burn and generally cause chaos. It's worth noting that Seattle and Portland, are primarily Caucasian (67% taken from OPCD), (77% taken from US Census Data) respectively. I think the looting can be more attributed to a general anarchy/countercultural movement in the PNW as opposed to protestors regarding BLM. It's definitely something that is more complex and requires more research than an off-the-cuff comment could generate.
sneak 6y ago
> I think this narrowly focuses on transgressions against journos. While the police are (in theory) subject to the same laws as everyone else that ban assault and battery, they are approximately never enforced against cops, and the US constitution doesn't say anything specifically about the right to not get beat up by the police (although that right certainly exists). It does say that there are to be no laws abridging the freedom of the press. Additionally, press freedoms are really important, as a properly functioning free press allows people who might not get beat up by the police access to the knowledge that the police are breaking the law and beating people. People don't seem to like it when authority figures act hypocritically, so this is a great tool for exposing their crimes and perhaps causing something to be done about it. From a consequentialist point of view, it's worse when the police beat journalists than people who aren't documenting cop crimes, because preventing press from publishing about criminal behavior by police increases the likelihood that they will go unpunished. If we have limited resources to fight them, we should protect those who can accomplish the most in fighting this longstanding police culture of violence, racism, and lies by exposing it for the shameful, dishonorable practice that it is.

underseacables 6y ago

When a journalist steps beyond being a journalist and turns into an activist, of course they’re going to get arrested if they break the law. Just because someone is a journalist does not give them a pass from breaking the law.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> Just because someone is a journalist does not give them a pass from breaking the law. I’m entirely on the side of real journalism so it was interacting to see some people that thought a press badge meant they didn’t need to also follow police orders.
- pas 6y ago
  Not following police order is grounds for arrest, not for getting a riot shield bashed into one's face.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    I don't know about the US, but here in Canada not following police orders is not by itself grounds for arrest. It has to be a lawful order, not whatever the police fancies at the moment. The police cannot for example say "stop filming or I will arrest you" and be able to legally justify that arrest in the court of law. https://globalnews.ca/news/6233399/supreme-court-montreal-escalator-handrail-ruling/ https://globalnews.ca/news/6233399/supreme-court-montreal-es...
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      It was a dispersal order to leave a riot so the crowd can be controlled, not an order to stop filming. There’s no other legal and humane way to deal with rioters amongst a crowd. Even if you aren’t being violent or breaking anything, you have to leave when told to do so.
      - pas 6y ago
        Let me copy my comment here too - sorry for the spam. "In the video the police had control. There was absolutely zero need to escalate. They were trying to punish and intimidate the crowd instead of trying to disperse or control it. That should cost the commanding officer's job." The professional way is to identify the instigators/leaders in the crowd and extract them one by one. Also to constantly move the crowd street by street - toward less narrow places. > You have to leave when told to do so. And if you don't they might arrest you. Standing there is no cause for smashing faces. They can simply grab the closest persons to the police line, bring them behind the line, arrest them. No need to lash out. This gets the message across. If the crowd starts to escalate, sure, water jets. But even that's usually completely unnecessary. Just pick up the trouble makers one-by-one, usually that means less than a dozen people. Because if there really is an organized fanatical crowd then the police would likely withdraw, like they did in Seattle "zone".
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      It's not, which is why you see people arrested this way getting released without charges. It's an intimidation tactic, and the officers face zero consequences for employing it. "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" and all that.
      - smnrchrds 6y ago
        Toronto police did very similar things during the 2010 G20 Toronto summit protests. Then chief of Toronto Police is now a cabinet minister. I don't want to insinuate that this kind of behaviour does not happen in Canada. It certainly does, but it doesn't make it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX0BbLc_PIk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX0BbLc_PIk
  - passerby1 6y ago
    Can officer give some absurd order just as cause to arrest someone?
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      Generally, yes. Victims of this tactic are required to obey the absurd orders and then seek remedy from the courts afterward. There are exceptions related to orders to break the law, put oneself or others into danger, and so on. For example, if you resist arrest, the underlying charge may get dropped for lack of evidence but the resisting arrest charges may remain. Though, the resisting arrest charges (or obstruction charges) may get dropped too depending on the prosecuting agency's policies.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It depends on the police order. Order someone to step to the side for public safety? Probably alright. Probably. Unless it's obvious that what they really mean is "Step so you can't see what I'm about to do." Order someone to stop filming? Spot-check your First Amendment training and get back to me. Or give that order again, on camera.
smnrchrds 6y ago
Breaking the law like filming police violence for example: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/minneapolis-protests-omar-jimenez-arrested-newday-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/minneapolis-protest... Watch the video and tell me how that arrest was justified.
- manfredo 6y ago
  What was the person filming arrested for? I know many in Seattle were arrested for violating curfews or dispersal orders, and proceeded to claim that they were arrested for filming. They weren't arrested for filming, they were arrested because they harbored ill-conceived views that declaring oneself a journalist exempted them from curfews and orders to disperse and proceeded to violate them.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    > Jimenez could be seen holding his CNN badge while reporting, identifying himself as a reporter, and telling the officers the crew would move wherever officers needed them to. An officer gripped his arm as Jimenez talked, then put him in handcuffs. > Police told the crew they were being detained because they were told to move and didn't, one member of the CNN crew relayed to the network. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arrested/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arres... If you can simply not imagine the police arresting someone for no reason, or for challenging their unlawful assertion of authority, or so they can beat up protesters more effectively away from the watchful eyes of the press, no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. But please, consider that police misbehaviour is at the very least a possibility.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      > Police told the crew they were being detained because they were told to move and didn't, one member of the CNN crew relayed to the network. Right, they were violating an order to disperse or a curfew. Again, being a journalist doesn't bestow some special rights that lets you ignore the police when they issue an order to disperse or set a curfew. When people are looting and burning stuff down, the law has provisions to let the police say "this is out of hand, the only way we have to restore peace is to tell everyone to get out of the area". And when people ignore those orders they're violating the law and subject to arrest. And so are CNN's journalists. Being a journalist doesn't bestow any special rights. You can disagree with whether it was appropriate to order people disperse in this situation. But what is certain is that your previous comment was spreading falsehood: they weren't arrested for filming police, they were arrested for ignoring an order to disperse or a curfew. I'd come off as a lot less deceptive if you were transparent about the real reason for the arrest in your previous comment. It's 40 minutes old at the time of my writing this so you have at least an hour to edit it.
pas 6y ago
Yes, well, of course, indubitably, those pesky activists with press passes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pti6ZiH7dQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pti6ZiH7dQ The age old crime of filming crime.
PeterisP 6y ago
This argument would be valid if the arrested journalists were in fact breaking the law, but it's not the case - the vast majority of the arrests ended up with prosecutors declining to press charges as the detainees were not breaking any laws. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/us/protests-lawsuits-arrests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/us/protests-lawsuits-arre... has some overview, of course the actual pdf linked in the original article has more detail as well.
jerry1979 6y ago
How many of the arrested journalists "stepped beyond" their duty? It appears that the police harmed journalists during the journalists' regular course of duty: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/31/journalists-blinded-injured-arrested-covering-george-floyd-protests/5299374002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/31/journa...
ska 6y ago
The implicit assumption here is that those journalists who got arrested did so because they broke the law, not because of misbehaviour on the part of the police. There seems to be at least enough evidence of the plausibility of the latter that the assumption is far too strong to offer without evidence.

everdrive 6y ago

>What the YoY stonks increase on Americans shot by rubber bullets? What is a YoY stonk

willis936 6y ago
It is a year-over-year stock, as typed on r/wallstreetbets.
- garyfirestorm 6y ago
  A man/woman of culture amongst us
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  This interaction demonstrates the risk of taking Reddit slang out of its native context.
hyperman1 6y ago
I assume YoY is the year over year increase. Stonk mystifies me too, maybe some typo? Update: stonk=slang for bombardment, according to a quick google.
- hobofan 6y ago
  stonk = stock in memespeak
- jjcm 6y ago
  stonks = stocks in internet slang. Mostly via r/wallstreetbets
astura 6y ago
"YoY" is "year over year" in finance terms, it just some comparison of data from one year to data from the previous year. "Stonks" is an intentional misspelling of "stocks" which is a meme word used humorously (like "pwn") and it implies that the speaker doesn't understand financial markets

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

Why would you assume that cops are racist? Especially when a lot of them are black themselves?

saagarjha 6y ago
This comment is much more inflammatory than it needs to be.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  What do you mean? Parent comment was inflammatory by slandering anyone who works in an entire profession with no basis. Asking him why is not inflammatory.
outworlder 6y ago
Because we have looked at the statistics.
- asguy 6y ago
  Which statistics?
- jimmygrapes 6y ago
  Which statistics are these, please provide! They must be both very detailed and very massaged to get a result as generic as "cops are racist" (a mindset that requires significantly more information than provided by mere statistics to identify).
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Here's one pretty interesting result: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.h... > The largest-ever study of alleged racial profiling during traffic stops has found that blacks, who are pulled over more frequently than whites by day, are much less likely to be stopped after sunset, when "a veil of darkness" masks their race. > The Stanford team decided to repeat the analysis using the much larger dataset that they had gathered. First, they narrowed the range of variables they had to analyze by choosing a specific time of day -- around 7 p.m. -- when the probable causes for a stop were more or less constant. Next, they took advantage of the fact that, in the months before and after daylight saving time each year, the sky gets a little darker or lighter, day by day. Because they had such a massive database, the researchers were able to find 113,000 traffic stops, from all of the locations in their database, that occurred on those days, before or after clocks sprang forward or fell back, when the sky was growing darker or lighter at around 7 p.m. local time.

manfredo 6y ago

There's a strong argument to be made for police accountability and conduct. But this post seems to complete ignore the actions of demonstrators and the journalists (often self-proclaimed and self-employed) embedded within them. Look at the disparity between Portland and Minneapolis with respect to the rest of the country: New York has 20 times the population yet only half the journalist arrests. Portland has the same number of journalist arrests and New York but only 1/12th the population. These are order-of-magnitude differences, in cities that happened to have widespread rioting. And from a more firsthand perspective, I can say that in my hometown of the Seattle metro I never had witnessed the same level of chaos. Armed demonstrators cordoned off a several blocks of the city and declared it off limits to police, and successfully did so for almost a month. Thus is something I have never witnessed before. Nor have I ever witnessed widespread looting outside of Seattle. I live in Bellevue and stores across the street from single family homes were being looted. I saw people walking out of Bellevue Square mall with stolen stuff in broad daylight as though it was completely normal. Neither of these were things I witnessed during the Michael Brown protests or other demonstrations against police conduct. Both the data and my lived experiences indicate a correlation between more extreme behavior among protestors and more arrests. If we could point to demonstrable differences in the criteria police use for arrests you may have a point. But presently I see little reason to conclude that the disparity in arrests in 2020 are due to policing changes rather than the behavior of demonstrators.

jjeaff 6y ago
I don't have any memory in my lifetime of a credentialed CNN reporter being arrested live on air in front of his camera crew on US soil until this year. I think it is rare that the singular instance of misbehavior is caught on live video feed. I would have to assume that there were many, many similar cases that weren't captured on live cable news.
aesclepius 6y ago
> Both the data and my lived experiences indicate a correlation between more extreme behavior among protestors and more arrests. I think there's a false attribution of 'extreme behavior' with 'protestors' primarily. feel there are a significant number of people who took advantage of the protests to loot and burn and generally cause chaos. It's worth noting that Seattle and Portland, are primarily Caucasian (67% taken from OPCD), (77% taken from US Census Data) respectively. I think the looting can be more attributed to a general anarchy/countercultural movement in the PNW as opposed to protestors regarding BLM. It's definitely something that is more complex and requires more research than an off-the-cuff comment could generate.

sneak 6y ago

> I think this narrowly focuses on transgressions against journos. While the police are (in theory) subject to the same laws as everyone else that ban assault and battery, they are approximately never enforced against cops, and the US constitution doesn't say anything specifically about the right to not get beat up by the police (although that right certainly exists). It does say that there are to be no laws abridging the freedom of the press. Additionally, press freedoms are really important, as a properly functioning free press allows people who might not get beat up by the police access to the knowledge that the police are breaking the law and beating people. People don't seem to like it when authority figures act hypocritically, so this is a great tool for exposing their crimes and perhaps causing something to be done about it. From a consequentialist point of view, it's worse when the police beat journalists than people who aren't documenting cop crimes, because preventing press from publishing about criminal behavior by police increases the likelihood that they will go unpunished. If we have limited resources to fight them, we should protect those who can accomplish the most in fighting this longstanding police culture of violence, racism, and lies by exposing it for the shameful, dishonorable practice that it is.