The Press and Preemptive Arrests
posted by Timothy Zick
As this report indicates, police are dropping charges against several journalists arrested during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The mayor pats himself and the city on the back for “protecting” and “promoting” press liberties. To the contrary, as I noted in a prior post, pressing and subsequently dismissing charges has become a critical aspect of public policing at mass demonstrations and rallies. The tactic has also been used at various presidential events in recent years. The tactic appears to be to arrest now and sort the charges later — a sort of preemptive strike used to control mass contention. The fact that so many press members were caught in the net this time highlights a distinct harm from this pernicious strategy. It is bad enough that many — in some cases hundreds — of protesters are processed in this fashion. To interfere with the function of the press in this manner deprives us of instantaneous access to information of public concern. At least the city plans to use a broad definition of “the press” in determining which charges to drop. It’s unfortunate that they did not exercise more care in pressing the charges in the first place.
September 22, 2008 at 11:40 am
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Responses (9)
Samir Chopra - September 22, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m hopeful that someday a full report on the tactics of the New York police during RNC 2004 will be written that will specify very clearly the massive abuses that went on that week.
Maryland Conservatarian - September 22, 2008 at 12:57 pm
wrong is wrong – the fact that some of the working press got caught up in the net doesn’t heighten the wrongness of the act. Someone on the payroll of the NY Times or MSNBC should have no more rights recognized than you or I.
Larry Sheldon - September 22, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Isn’t interesting how interesting the question became when the leftist press began to test the limits.
Larry Sheldon - September 22, 2008 at 4:21 pm
There is an interesting question–an I genuinely do not know the answer.
How many of the rightist press got scooped up?
tim zick - September 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm
MC: agreed that “wrong is wrong” and that, technically, the press don’t have any greater substantive rights than others in these circumstances. But given their institutional function, and the importance of these events in a democracy, I think these arrests impose a discrete harm.
LS: I don’t think this form of policing is “partisan” in any sense. It has occurred at both major party conventions. Journalists were simply swept up with everyone else — regardless of their perspective.
JP - September 22, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Some of the reports I have seen indicate that members of the press had the opportunity to “embed” with the police to cover the protests. Obviously, this is a very imperfect way to report on such an event, and I seriously doubt the police could accommodate every journalist present.
Nevertheless, it seems that the journalists who choose to stay with the protesters that are protesting without or in violation of their permits, and who refuse to obey the dispersal orders, are breaking the law and can reasonably expect to be arrested along with the crowd. Dismissing the the charges ex post seems to be an imperfect, but practical, balancing of competing interests.
Howard Wasserman - September 22, 2008 at 7:24 pm
The assumption in much of this discussion is that the dispersal orders were lawful. How accurate is that?
Larry Sheldon - September 22, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I did not say nor intend to imply partisanship on the part police.
My question (reworded for another attempt at clarity) is this:
How many rightists newspeople were in the places, doing the things, that got the leftists arrested?
tim zick - September 23, 2008 at 9:15 am
LS: Thanks for the clarification. I’m still not entirely sure how right-left distinctions are relevant here. The arrests, insofar as I can tell, were made because the journalists were on the ground in places the police and other authorities (initially) determined they did not have a right to be. Are you making a supposition that “leftist” press members were arrested because they were engaged in some unlawful activity or contentious civil disobedience? And conversely, is there a supposition that “rightist” press members would not engage in such behavior and thus would not have been arrested and swept up? If not, then what is the relevance of the right/left distinction?
Leave a Reply