Comments on: The Press and Preemptive Arrests

By: tim zick

tim zick — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:15:35 +0000

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?

By: Larry Sheldon

Larry Sheldon — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:51:34 +0000

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?

By: Howard Wasserman

Howard Wasserman — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:24:00 +0000

The assumption in much of this discussion is that the dispersal orders were lawful. How accurate is that?

By: JP

JP — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:55:33 +0000

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.

By: tim zick

tim zick — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:20:10 +0000

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.

By: Larry Sheldon

Larry Sheldon — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:21:31 +0000

There is an interesting question–an I genuinely do not know the answer.

How many of the rightist press got scooped up?

By: Larry Sheldon

Larry Sheldon — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:19:53 +0000

Isn’t interesting how interesting the question became when the leftist press began to test the limits.

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:57:20 +0000

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.

By: Samir Chopra

Samir Chopra — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:55:04 +0000

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.