4 ms·

Is there a "press license" in USA?

by Gare 2y ago

TylerE 2y ago
Not as such, but working for a credible agency is certainly a thing. Could be a newspaper or a TV station, or a syndicate like the Associated Press or UPI.
- LegitShady 2y ago
  its not a thing in terms of rights or laws. By choosing arbitrary media orgs who can and disallowing normal people who are also press by law, they're kind of screwing themselves here. They can no longer claim this is a security or safety issue.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    I don’t think they were saying that, just some posted here. They’re allowed to set the rules on private property. A NASA launch site is not a public park.
    - skissane 2y ago
      There is a technical legal difference here, although it doesn’t amount to much in practice. A NASA launch site, even a military base - as government property it formally falls within the scope of the First Amendment. However, once you start evaluating the case law exceptions, almost certainly one or more of them will apply, effectively cancelling out the First Amendment in practice. By contrast, a purely private launch site, like SpaceX’s Boca Chica, isn’t normally within the scope of the First Amendment to begin with, so we don’t even have to consider the exceptions. I think the fact that ULA’s site is leased government property doesn’t per se remove it from the First Amendment’s scope (unlike purely private property such as Boca Chica). But even though it is technically in scope, once the exceptions are considered, it might as well not be. That said, one can think up rather unlikely hypotheticals in which it might make a difference in practice. Suppose, however bizarrely, SpaceX chose to allow a religious group to hold services at its Boca Chica launch site, or a political party to hold a rally there - and then denied requests from competing religious/political groups for the same privilege - as a purely private site, that would likely be within their 1st Amendment rights. By contrast, if they wanted to do the same thing on property they lease from NASA at KSC - or from Space Force at Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg - it could well violate the First Amendment were the government to allow them to do that. Of course, in reality, it is extremely unlikely SpaceX would ever want to do such a thing.
  - skissane 2y ago
    To the extent that is a First Amendment issue at all (which is debatable), I think it would be classified as a content-neutral time/place/manner restriction, which are frequently upheld: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/time-place-and-manner-restrictions/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/time-place-and-manne... I don’t agree with this ULA decision, and I extra disagree with ULA’s apparent avoidance of public discussion of the reasons behind it. But I’d be very surprised if any court ruled against it

Is there a "press license" in USA?

by Gare 2y ago

Is there a "press license" in USA?

Not as such, but working for a credible agency is certainly a thing. Could be a newspaper or a TV station, or a syndicate like the Associated Press or UPI.

LegitShady 2y ago
its not a thing in terms of rights or laws. By choosing arbitrary media orgs who can and disallowing normal people who are also press by law, they're kind of screwing themselves here. They can no longer claim this is a security or safety issue.
- TylerE 2y ago
  I don’t think they were saying that, just some posted here. They’re allowed to set the rules on private property. A NASA launch site is not a public park.
  - skissane 2y ago
    There is a technical legal difference here, although it doesn’t amount to much in practice. A NASA launch site, even a military base - as government property it formally falls within the scope of the First Amendment. However, once you start evaluating the case law exceptions, almost certainly one or more of them will apply, effectively cancelling out the First Amendment in practice. By contrast, a purely private launch site, like SpaceX’s Boca Chica, isn’t normally within the scope of the First Amendment to begin with, so we don’t even have to consider the exceptions. I think the fact that ULA’s site is leased government property doesn’t per se remove it from the First Amendment’s scope (unlike purely private property such as Boca Chica). But even though it is technically in scope, once the exceptions are considered, it might as well not be. That said, one can think up rather unlikely hypotheticals in which it might make a difference in practice. Suppose, however bizarrely, SpaceX chose to allow a religious group to hold services at its Boca Chica launch site, or a political party to hold a rally there - and then denied requests from competing religious/political groups for the same privilege - as a purely private site, that would likely be within their 1st Amendment rights. By contrast, if they wanted to do the same thing on property they lease from NASA at KSC - or from Space Force at Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg - it could well violate the First Amendment were the government to allow them to do that. Of course, in reality, it is extremely unlikely SpaceX would ever want to do such a thing.
- skissane 2y ago
  To the extent that is a First Amendment issue at all (which is debatable), I think it would be classified as a content-neutral time/place/manner restriction, which are frequently upheld: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/time-place-and-manner-restrictions/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/time-place-and-manne... I don’t agree with this ULA decision, and I extra disagree with ULA’s apparent avoidance of public discussion of the reasons behind it. But I’d be very surprised if any court ruled against it