4 ms·

Judge bans NBC from Kenosha courthouse after report of producer following jurors

23 points by Natsu 5y ago

Natsu 5y ago
Title was too long to submit, had to shorten it, the current title is "Judge bans MSNBC from Kenosha courthouse after report of producer following jurors." Note that the judge said both NBC and MSNBC on stream.
h2odragon 5y ago
There's rumors from yesterday that jurors had told court officials (?) they feared the consequences, for themselves and their families, of a "not guilty" verdict. I think they'd be correct in that fear. I wish them the strength to do what they know is right.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Natsu 5y ago
  An excluded juror said that explicitly during voire dire.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
retox 5y ago
https://archive.md/ys2kA https://archive.md/ys2kA
rvz 5y ago
Oh dear. Looks like media reporters like NBC and MSNBC have become more desperate in trying to distort, and continuing to interfere with the process of this trial and would even follow the jurors home, possibly exposing them if the outcome of the trial is not the result they have wanted.
- iszomer 5y ago
  I think some will initially see this as an attempt at jury tampering.
jfengel 5y ago
Ah, I see. So today we're good with limiting the freedom of the press. I'll check in again tomorrow, when we're back to being outraged about some blogger being criticized for spreading misinformation. Thanks for the update!
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Do random bloggers have the same access as journalists?
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Freedom to intimidate jurors is not a right
- Natsu 5y ago
  There was no restriction on their speech at all, only on their presence in the courthouse. They're free to watch the streams and report as they wish. That restriction abides by the normal 3-prong test for time, place & manner restrictions: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and-manner-restrictions https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and... * The regulation must be content neutral. There was no restriction at all on the content of their publications. * It must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. They were kicked out for the duration of the trial (one whole day), which is narrow. This came after they were caught interfering with the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant, which is a significant governmental interest. * It must leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message. They can easily watch the streams everyone else is watching and report, so it has no meaningful impact on their coverage at all. There were no content restrictions put on them of any kind. They were given due process, and none of their speech was censored at all. The only restriction was on their physical presence near the jury, there was no speech-related restriction whatsoever. Perhaps you can explain how legally or culturally this impinges on free speech? It's very clearly lawful and appropriate given the circumstances and I cannot see how it in any way chills their speech.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't post ideological battle comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. I know other people are doing it too, but your comment stands out as particularly snarky, and in any case the rules apply regardless of what other people are doing. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

23 points by Natsu 5y ago

Title was too long to submit, had to shorten it, the current title is "Judge bans MSNBC from Kenosha courthouse after report of producer following jurors." Note that the judge said both NBC and MSNBC on stream.

h2odragon 5y ago

There's rumors from yesterday that jurors had told court officials (?) they feared the consequences, for themselves and their families, of a "not guilty" verdict. I think they'd be correct in that fear. I wish them the strength to do what they know is right.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 5y ago
An excluded juror said that explicitly during voire dire.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

retox 5y ago

https://archive.md/ys2kA https://archive.md/ys2kA

rvz 5y ago

Oh dear. Looks like media reporters like NBC and MSNBC have become more desperate in trying to distort, and continuing to interfere with the process of this trial and would even follow the jurors home, possibly exposing them if the outcome of the trial is not the result they have wanted.

iszomer 5y ago
I think some will initially see this as an attempt at jury tampering.

jfengel 5y ago

Ah, I see. So today we're good with limiting the freedom of the press. I'll check in again tomorrow, when we're back to being outraged about some blogger being criticized for spreading misinformation. Thanks for the update!

Chris2048 5y ago
Do random bloggers have the same access as journalists?
koheripbal 5y ago
Freedom to intimidate jurors is not a right
Natsu 5y ago
There was no restriction on their speech at all, only on their presence in the courthouse. They're free to watch the streams and report as they wish. That restriction abides by the normal 3-prong test for time, place & manner restrictions: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and-manner-restrictions https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and... * The regulation must be content neutral. There was no restriction at all on the content of their publications. * It must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. They were kicked out for the duration of the trial (one whole day), which is narrow. This came after they were caught interfering with the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant, which is a significant governmental interest. * It must leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message. They can easily watch the streams everyone else is watching and report, so it has no meaningful impact on their coverage at all. There were no content restrictions put on them of any kind. They were given due process, and none of their speech was censored at all. The only restriction was on their physical presence near the jury, there was no speech-related restriction whatsoever. Perhaps you can explain how legally or culturally this impinges on free speech? It's very clearly lawful and appropriate given the circumstances and I cannot see how it in any way chills their speech.
dang 5y ago
Please don't post ideological battle comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. I know other people are doing it too, but your comment stands out as particularly snarky, and in any case the rules apply regardless of what other people are doing. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html