4 ms·

Why do the press feel entitled to show up on someone's doorstep in mass? That is quite literally trespassing. They just feel like they can get away with it. L

by ck2 13y ago

Why do the press feel entitled to show up on someone's doorstep in mass? That is quite literally trespassing. They just feel like they can get away with it. Leave him alone, if he wanted to be found he would have shared it awhile ago.

anigbrowl 13y ago
IT's not trespassing to go up to someone's front door, otherwise the mail wouldn't get delivered. You can step on to the curtilage of someone's property, but you must leave if you are asked to do so - although nothing prevents you hanging around on the street in front of the property in hopes of getting an interview. If this becomes onerous, one can get a restraining order, but courts are cautious about handing them out to journalists engage din legitimate news gathering. In short, they feel like they can get away with it because they can legally get away with it.
- bertil 13y ago
  I don't think you need to be 150 to “gather information”.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I don't know what you mean.
    - bertil 13y ago
      You wrote: > courts are cautious about handing them out to journalists engage din legitimate news gathering. I doubt that it it News Worthy to be the 150th person with a TV camera standing at a recently declared news-worthy spot, or that most of those are gathering something that isn’t being recorded.
- ck2 13y ago
  So, serious argument: What if you purposely did not have a mailbox on your home but at the edge of your property (like much of rural America vs suburban) and you had no obvious front-door. Would a person then be entitled to wander around your property looking for you? I would hope not. So by having a front-door you are suggesting people are allowed to just walk onto your property, up to the door, anytime they feel like it and harass you? If no door or you do not answer, how about your back window? Bathroom window? I'm curious how the logic works.
  - nomaningme 13y ago
    I'm curious how your logic works. For someone so deeply worried about people intruding onto your property, you seem not to have ever heard of no soliciting/trespassing signs, and somehow leaped to the conclusion that the only proper response to the horror of strangers knocking on your door is to live in some doorless, windowless dystopian nightmare.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    You're conflating two different things - walking onto your property, and harassment. In general trespass to land - meaning to enter onto someone's property without a valid excuse, although the range of acceptable excuses can be very broad - is a tort, although it can also be a criminal offense in most US states. If someone refuses to leave or keeps coming back, then are of course within your rights to eject them,sue them, get a restraining order against them and so on. But in general, if you don't want people to knock on your front door then put up a sign, or a fence, or some other indication that you want to be left alone. you'd better, because if you allow people to trespass on your land without doing anything about it - say they cross your land to go fish in a river that lies just beyond it - then they may develop a right from your failure to challenge them, sometimes known as adverse possession or an easement by prescription. And no matter how vigorously you defend your borders, you can't stop planes flying over unless they're going so low as to be hazardous to you.
    - ck2 13y ago
      So, next time I want to walk across town, I am just going to put a reporter's notebook in my pocket and just skip walking on the roads. Instead I will walk across everyone's property and if the police eventually stop me, I will say I intended to interview the homeowners but changed my mind. I will occasionally walk up to people's doors and knock on them just to be plausible but since the law cannot read my mind or intent, they have to accept I am a journalist and have free speech rights to walk across anyone's property. Obviously this is an absurd extreme example but it follows your basic rules. And shows why they fail. You cannot just walk across town, across everyone's property. Yet do it on a small scale to harass a single person and it is okay?
Phlarp 13y ago
>Why do the press feel entitled to literally show up on someone's doorstep in mass? Mostly? The first amendment...
- ck2 13y ago
  Not on your doorstep. Free press means the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict their free speech. First amendment does not mean as an individual you can go harass someone at their home.
- nilved 13y ago
  Ah yes, the first amendment. The right to trespass given only to journalists.
- bertil 13y ago
  You are confusing their entitlement, a psychologically concerning lack of proper upbringing, respect and human decency, with rights. I could fill your inbox with abuse, threats and sickening images arguing it’s my god-given privilege — you’d still wonder why on Earth I would feel like ruining your life like that. And as pointed out, you are wrong about to whom the First Amendment applies to.
  - Phlarp 13y ago
    To clarify; I wasn't saying the first actually gives journalists the right to trespass or harass individuals. Just that some poorly trained journalists and misguided internet armchair pundits choose to interpret it that way.
workhere-io 13y ago
to literally show up on someone's doorstep in mass? Hate to be that guy, but... it's "en masse" :) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/en%20masse http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/en%20masse
- ck2 13y ago
  That's educational, surprised I didn't know that one. "in mass" seems to still make sense though in plain english What is funny is in the legal dictionary "en masse" is described as "in a mass" http://thelawdictionary.org/en-masse/ http://thelawdictionary.org/en-masse/
- meowface 13y ago
  Is "in mass" completely incorrect? I know "en masse" is the French version and what is usually said (and what I typically say/write, too), but "in mass" sounds syntactically and semantically correct to me.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - workhere-io 13y ago
    Sort of depends on how you pronounce it. "En masse" is not pronounced like "in mass" (check http://www.merriam-webster.com/audio.php?file=en_mas02&word=en%20masse&text=%5C%C3%A4%E2%81%BF(n)-%CB%88mas%2C%20-%CB%88m%C3%A4s%2C%20en-%5C http://www.merriam-webster.com/audio.php?file=en_mas02&word=...).

by ck2 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

IT's not trespassing to go up to someone's front door, otherwise the mail wouldn't get delivered. You can step on to the curtilage of someone's property, but you must leave if you are asked to do so - although nothing prevents you hanging around on the street in front of the property in hopes of getting an interview. If this becomes onerous, one can get a restraining order, but courts are cautious about handing them out to journalists engage din legitimate news gathering. In short, they feel like they can get away with it because they can legally get away with it.

bertil 13y ago
I don't think you need to be 150 to “gather information”.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I don't know what you mean.
  - bertil 13y ago
    You wrote: > courts are cautious about handing them out to journalists engage din legitimate news gathering. I doubt that it it News Worthy to be the 150th person with a TV camera standing at a recently declared news-worthy spot, or that most of those are gathering something that isn’t being recorded.
ck2 13y ago
So, serious argument: What if you purposely did not have a mailbox on your home but at the edge of your property (like much of rural America vs suburban) and you had no obvious front-door. Would a person then be entitled to wander around your property looking for you? I would hope not. So by having a front-door you are suggesting people are allowed to just walk onto your property, up to the door, anytime they feel like it and harass you? If no door or you do not answer, how about your back window? Bathroom window? I'm curious how the logic works.
- nomaningme 13y ago
  I'm curious how your logic works. For someone so deeply worried about people intruding onto your property, you seem not to have ever heard of no soliciting/trespassing signs, and somehow leaped to the conclusion that the only proper response to the horror of strangers knocking on your door is to live in some doorless, windowless dystopian nightmare.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  You're conflating two different things - walking onto your property, and harassment. In general trespass to land - meaning to enter onto someone's property without a valid excuse, although the range of acceptable excuses can be very broad - is a tort, although it can also be a criminal offense in most US states. If someone refuses to leave or keeps coming back, then are of course within your rights to eject them,sue them, get a restraining order against them and so on. But in general, if you don't want people to knock on your front door then put up a sign, or a fence, or some other indication that you want to be left alone. you'd better, because if you allow people to trespass on your land without doing anything about it - say they cross your land to go fish in a river that lies just beyond it - then they may develop a right from your failure to challenge them, sometimes known as adverse possession or an easement by prescription. And no matter how vigorously you defend your borders, you can't stop planes flying over unless they're going so low as to be hazardous to you.
  - ck2 13y ago
    So, next time I want to walk across town, I am just going to put a reporter's notebook in my pocket and just skip walking on the roads. Instead I will walk across everyone's property and if the police eventually stop me, I will say I intended to interview the homeowners but changed my mind. I will occasionally walk up to people's doors and knock on them just to be plausible but since the law cannot read my mind or intent, they have to accept I am a journalist and have free speech rights to walk across anyone's property. Obviously this is an absurd extreme example but it follows your basic rules. And shows why they fail. You cannot just walk across town, across everyone's property. Yet do it on a small scale to harass a single person and it is okay?

Phlarp 13y ago

>Why do the press feel entitled to literally show up on someone's doorstep in mass? Mostly? The first amendment...

ck2 13y ago
Not on your doorstep. Free press means the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict their free speech. First amendment does not mean as an individual you can go harass someone at their home.
nilved 13y ago
Ah yes, the first amendment. The right to trespass given only to journalists.
bertil 13y ago
You are confusing their entitlement, a psychologically concerning lack of proper upbringing, respect and human decency, with rights. I could fill your inbox with abuse, threats and sickening images arguing it’s my god-given privilege — you’d still wonder why on Earth I would feel like ruining your life like that. And as pointed out, you are wrong about to whom the First Amendment applies to.
- Phlarp 13y ago
  To clarify; I wasn't saying the first actually gives journalists the right to trespass or harass individuals. Just that some poorly trained journalists and misguided internet armchair pundits choose to interpret it that way.

workhere-io 13y ago

to literally show up on someone's doorstep in mass? Hate to be that guy, but... it's "en masse" :) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/en%20masse http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/en%20masse

ck2 13y ago
That's educational, surprised I didn't know that one. "in mass" seems to still make sense though in plain english What is funny is in the legal dictionary "en masse" is described as "in a mass" http://thelawdictionary.org/en-masse/ http://thelawdictionary.org/en-masse/
meowface 13y ago
Is "in mass" completely incorrect? I know "en masse" is the French version and what is usually said (and what I typically say/write, too), but "in mass" sounds syntactically and semantically correct to me.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- workhere-io 13y ago
  Sort of depends on how you pronounce it. "En masse" is not pronounced like "in mass" (check http://www.merriam-webster.com/audio.php?file=en_mas02&word=en%20masse&text=%5C%C3%A4%E2%81%BF(n)-%CB%88mas%2C%20-%CB%88m%C3%A4s%2C%20en-%5C http://www.merriam-webster.com/audio.php?file=en_mas02&word=...).