If she wants to have private events, she can. No problem.

But she can't bill them as PUBLIC events and then keep out the press -- because the press is part of the public. Period.

First Amendment Right of candidly communicating with their political leader and potential representative may be enhanced without national exposure not to mention in some cases their safety.

if she's excluding an important part of the PUBLIC.

A lot of her constituents are vulnerable to our friendly jackbooted thugs in ICE getting their jollies busting people who show up in the media or otherwise run afoul of their net.

this as a public event.

She didn't have a public or an open-to-all-constituents event. She had an event that excluded part of the voters in her constituency.

"listening to the concerns of the constituents in NY-14..."

The Queens Chronicle is a "constituent".

the truth hurts? Words with truth in them don't belong here if they concern a "private citizen" in a public position as a candidate running for PUBLIC OFFICE? Please, what? Beautiful cat.

But I think her stated reasons for excluding the press for this one event are valid given what ICE and Trump are up to.

But how were her constituents protected from ICE? Only reporters were barred from the door. ICE people in civilian clothes could have entered and used their cell phones to take pictures. Other attendees did so, and then tweeted them out and put them on other social media.

So coverage and photos weren't banned -- just coverage by professional media.

She invited her constituents, but not the press.

What if she had invited her donors but not the press?

No one would be complaining at all. That would seem quite normal.

of the Queens event. The local Queens press gave the primary run and victory extensive positive coverage.

Does she think that ICE is going to raid her events?

Ended nearly a month ago. Gosh, I hope you remembered to vote.

....Congressman Joseph Crowley, and he will be until at least January 2019.

Some could learn a lot from the way he conducted himself over the years.

That's good. Wouldn't want anyone thinking it was sour grapes... though I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think that.

that the press is not part of the public, while confirming Trump's meme that the press is the enemy of the people.

there are public events, like courtroom hearings, where press have had restricted access, so it's no different here.

While attendee constituents even tweeted out photos and quotes, the actual local reporters were barred.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211017844

So the campaign event was allowing coverage -- but not coverage by reporters.

Your comparison to a courtroom fails, because people in the audience there can't film proceedings on their cell phones and post photos and quotes on Twitter.

The press is part of the public. It's not the enemy of the people.

But she is free to hold private events, and if she is really worried about risk for some of her constituents, that's what she should do. This public event didn't protect them. Attendees were still having their pictures taken and posted on social media. Even an ICE person wearing civilian clothes could have shown up and taken pictures.

The only people who couldn't cover the event were professional news people -- even from the local Queens newspaper.

So she'd still have to figure out a better way to describe it.

Also, if she cared about the privacy of attendees, she should have told them not to take photos and post them on the web. It makes no sense to ban news people for privacy reasons, but then let other attendees post photos on Twitter, etc.

The usuals used it against her. She is a fine young woman and she will be great in congress.

This was a bad unforced error.

If you don't want the press to come have a PRIVATE event. This is PUBLIC.

We need to win 23 Republican seats. We need the support of independents, swing voters, some past trump voters who may turn, patriot Republicans who don't want to vote trump or democratic but could vote democratic anyway in these districts. They don't seem partial to Socialist/Abolish Ice possibilities. There are more of these votes to be had, than promised Socialist/Abolish Ice new voters.

I am not a Clinton supporter. This is a practical politics issue now!

Obama was a community organizer. He shares left goals, worked for them, even when he could have easily been a Supreme Court law clerk, etc. He knows the electoral process and the practical politics of getting things done. The November 2018 Election is, has to be, the Great War we have to win. Everythng else is way secondary. Obama is coming strong on this obvious Election priority. Obama pointedly did not endorse AOC despite his 81 other election endorsements, because November is not the every last possible vote priority of some on the left.

Obama has seen and participated on various sides, in many of these disputes. He knows his history. MLK and his 'moderation', was very aware of the cost and damage the left Stokely Carmicheals, Malcolm X supporters, et al, plus what some on the white left [the 'red hots'] did,[and what the rw wanted them to do], to the great Civil Rights Campaigns/Great Society, of the 60's did. In retrospect it was miraculous what LBJ was able to do. We would not have that, or anything like it, today if we had not won that 60's Great War. The larger reality is that this is a center right electorate, like it or not. [I don't].

There is a reason the rw media 'loves' and disproportionately, promotes BS/AOC tremendously - as the SocialistAbolish Ice face, of 'Democrat poster children'. [I see, somewhat unwillingly, fox spews about 2 hours a week, various times, on my exercise machine at the gym]. There is strong reasons for that rw support, it benefits the right wing greatly. Especially, with all the negative trump stuff, Manafort, other numerous scandals, so much on the news - BS/AOC shine brightly on fox offense, amid all the fox defense.

the message and the people demanded it.

Why would you have to be a "progressive" or "socialist" to believe the logic, common sense and morality for this message to be true?

but are not the right answer now, when traitortrump is threatening our Republic tremendously, everyday. This is war time.

There is no excuse for this. I’m not saying it is a disqualification for her, but it was a mistake.
The media routinely protects the identity of people that might be vulnerable.

the media considering the many Reich wing outlets ie; Fox, Brietbart etc. etc. would take a large leap of faith.

I think she is admitting to the currently hostile nature surrounding the press, as well as her own campaign because she's getting attention for being an "upset"...and she might have wanted to offer that safe space for the constituents.
That said, You are a public persona and candidate for a national office, and your constituents know that.
They wouldn't show up to speak PUBLICLY at a town hall and NOT expect to be "seen" or interviewed. Maybe some of those people WANTED a real public forum for their grievances or comments for the government or those who WANT to be honored to govern...

Funny, I started this thinking one thing and now I am kinda getting more upset at the notion.

PUBLIC office require attention for ALL the public, not just a few folks who want to influence a candidate. That takes us dangerously close to back room deals right in our faces...oh, um, yeah...

But we all know they are just aching to pick apart her aggressive agenda.

is such a minor faction of our Party, going around the country campaigning against tried and true members of the Democratic Party. Tried their BS against one of my DEMOCRATIC PARTY stalwart-candidates and BOOM!!!! Didn't work.

Our voters were and smarter than to believe warmed-over dinner plates that have rot underneath. This factions tactics have been around soooo long trying to dress up our Party's ideas as something new from their minor faction. BOOOMMM!!!! Doesn't work. In the late 60's, early 70's I became aware of this faction's agenda and proposed policies. They were the same as our Democratic Party then, co-opted as "new", as that faction is trying today. People are smarter than that. Thank God or an Independent who has always stated he never wanted to be a Democratic, until needed for some political purpose, obvious. I know democratic-socialists and they are a minor faction of the huge tent of the Democratic Party. Lots of smoke, mirrors and noise, but little substance or new ideas. They have to be Democrats FIRST and they state that in the end, they are primarily socialist co-opting our Party's ideas. That's all.

and they have targeted the most vulnerable.

I don't believe it to be about Alexandria so much as her constituents and the current volatile political climate.

'Back room deals" inevitably involve large quantities of money, I don't believe the people in Alexandria's town hall pose much if any threat on that front.

But at the same time I truly understand the danger as well...not really from the media, but the coverage triggering a MAGA nutball and putting people in danger or the candidate herself.

It's a scary balance and our first amendment has to be supported as well...for the constituents and for the media...

I hate we are even having this discussion with the shit that's going on in the Administration and Congress... ugh

Peace to you.

Thank you for this. The republicans and their lackeys attacking Alexandria are a giggle.

Some hear bash her regularly. Sad to see.

that we support our Democratic candidate?
Yes but... means no.

How is it that every time I suggest that we try to minimize destructive infighting someone gets offended and tries to start an argument?

She won her primary.
She is the democratic candidate.

First do no harm.

Banning the press from a public meeting, as if it isn't part of the public -- especially while DT is calling the press "the enemy of the people" -- is a serious mistake.

Last edited Sat Aug 18, 2018, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

with Our Revolution and their focus on primarying incumbent Dems and their not-so-stealth goals of disrupting my party are why people question the hypocrisy and double standards when they arise.

First do no harm, indeed. Quit attacking my party to promote your own group. The Mueller indictments document who was used to divide Democrats. Proven fact now who was used.

Thank you H2O Man.

I was called to jury duty here yesterday on a thread regarding this story. I was actually in a bit of an argument in another thread on the same issue when asked to sit on the jury, so I figured I would have to back out and cancel my jury service on that particular issue, seeing as the potential violation was for repeating right-wing talking points...kind of felt that even though it quickly became a RWTP we kind of need to acknowlege the attempts to use AOC as a wedge and address the trolls among us.

ICE is watching, ya know?

It's a pretty simple thing to understand when in public office.

#WeAreAllThePress

Maybe ICE doesn't know about Facebook.

If you want to see an accusation, please refer to Post #60. That is also known as attempting to put words into someone else's mouth.

She's just not your kind of Democrat, is she?

Well, she is exactly what a Dem should be -- a fighter.

Domestic Violence otherwise known as VAWA. We have been fighting for this forever and for the reauthorization when it comes up again as it is now. Never see a bit of concern about the subject until now.

And ICE people could have attended as members of the public. They could even have been there taking their own photos. How do you know they weren't?

If privacy was truly needed, they should have had a closed meeting and not billed this as a meeting for the public -- from which they excluded the press. It's bad enough that Trump is demonizing the press. Democrats should recognize the press as standing in for the people, not being the enemy of the people.

to that dynamic.

If the event was to speak to illegals or those in fear of ICE, then tell me why it was a Public forum?

Did they discuss how to vote? Without the Press there to carry that message to others who were unable to attend?

Anyone know what was discussed at the public-yet-private event?
Why ban the Press?

The Press has a Constitutional Right to question their being banned.

These are Rights we Progressive Americans should be proud to fight like hell to uphold, especially with the threat of Trump.

Have those who couldn't attend the event been told what was discussed?

I inderstand why she did it.

But it was a bad decision. Her inexperience is showing.

and everybody would be happy.

So who made this error without thought of the Constitutional ramifications?

Who decided to ban the Press at a public forum?

That was the indefensible error of judgment regardless of what the nature of the forum was.
Two separate matters.

#WeAreAllThePress

You think that the "or" in that section of the First Amendment actually means "either or"?

Color me officially gobsmacked.

Damn!

FWIW, I'm not suggesting that this is a 1A issue, as AOC is not a representative of the government. But if it were, the government is prohibited from restricting the rights of free speech AND the press.