I can answer for you: There is NO govt department that is in charge of issuing press credentials, because there IS NO SUCH THING.

A media company (or anybody else) can print and laminate a fancy multi-colored complete with logo card, but it gives no more legal or constitutional rights than a piece of tape on your chest with a Sharpie scrawl on it that says "Press".

Basically they are allowed when they give some people ( "credentialed press" ) special privileges - basically the right to be where the general public isn't allowed - for example the White House Press room or being in the middle of a riot or they allow the holder the right to bypass security screening at a location.

Here is a copy of the "Press Credential" requirements for the Supreme Court of the United States (.pdf):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/Media_Requirements_And_Procedures_Revised_070717.pdf

Middle of a riot? No.

A "press pass" is sort of a pre-background check for CERTAIN situations. Instead of having to look into someones background EVERY time they come to a White Press Conference, or get access to a locker room of a sports team.

Controlled situations. Sure. All the time.

In the middle of a riot? no way. No how. Never.

Too dynamic. What are the police supposed to do? Stop. Ignore any criminal activity that is going on around them. Call in to dispatch to have them check to see if the person holding a laminated card or shouting "WKRP! WKRP!" is REALLY who they say they are?|

no way. No how. Never.

Journalists know this too. I worked for an ABC affiliate for years. If a reporter had ignored police commands to leave an area and got themselves arrested while yelling the station call letters they would have likely been fired on the spot. Just a REALLy good way to sour the relationship between the station and the police and make it likely so that when the situation isnt as fluid and dangerous as say, in the middle of a riot, the station would NOT be granted access because the police have previous experience with their reporters NOT following instructions.

as an intern at a media company was to generate letters on company letterhead saying that "so & so" works for us in the following capacity _________. Then send it off to whatever department that was needed.

For the most part, it was a pro forma activity but for certain things (like sports teams, artistic events etc), it was required to be able to get in without having to buy a ticket. Even with the letter, some organizations would say "no".

Why the fuck should the government have anything to do with that?

Lying on a sworn affidavit is a felony. Why aren't the arresting officers being charged? (I know)

Link to tweet

BLM doesn’t act like that or call for the deaths of hospitalized police. Only agit-prop actors would be sooverthetop and sounding off exactly as Rightwingers like to claim when they stereotype the real movement.

A "press pass" does not mean you can do whatever you want and ignore police commands.

You can print up whatever kind of laminate you want and hang it around your neck and tell the police "I'm with the press!"... that means about F.A. when they tell you to leave an area.

Not saying the police were justified in arresting her, we dont know the entirety of the situation/facts... but falling back on, "I'm a member of the PRESS!" as some justification for not being arrested means little.

EVERYONE with a camera of a pencil and paper is a "member of the press" these days. Doesnt matter if you blog from your basement or report AP.

Which is what this woman is, a credentialed journalist, but your concern is noted.

Enjoy your stay. Do you like pizza?

A "press credential", no matter the source, doesn't mean you can ignore police commands.

Doesnt matter if you are "civvie" or a "professional"

There is no magic "I can ignore the police and go where ever/when ever I want" pass

again, not saying the police were justified in this case... just noting that yelling out a station FCC i.d. or showing a laminated card means nothing.

When you've already gone straight to rhe RW talking points playbook, in more than two posts in this thread alone.

Last edited Mon Sep 14, 2020, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I have merely stated facts... press passes dont grant special privileges to ignore police commands.

that is neither a left wing or right wing talking point.

It might be a fact you dont like, but it is a fact none the less.

It may be an irrelevancy you like to clothe yourself in, but it is an irrelevancy "none the less" (sic).

the entire assertion is that she shouldn't have been arrested because she is a member of the press, had a pass and said the call letters of a radio station.

Soooooooo "my" facts... which are actually EVEYRONE'S facts... are at best and worst, directly on point.


and stop with the personal attacks.

They told her ONCE to back up, she did. Perhaps she didn't back up as fast as they wanted her to, but they gave her little time to get very far back.

AS far as "leaving the area" the press cannot do their job of covering an event if they completely leave the area whenever the cops do not want a spotlight on their activities. The job of the press is to show what is going on and they cannot do that if they are not there in the middle of the action.

Oh, the courts have held that blog reporters are as legitimately press as those who report for AP, so yes "EVERYONE with a camera of a pencil and paper is a "member of the press" these days." Under the US Constitution we ALL have a right to freedom of speech, not just those with credentials from some big corporate press organization.

if the police are justified or not? That will have to play out.


from the video she posted we can see that:

she was behind the police as they advanced telling people to leave the area
Typically a good place to be as police advance dispersing a crowd
She then walked up into the police line as they were arresting someone
At that point not every officer is going to know, "Is this person someone that should have left the area due to our commands? Or did this person just walk up behind me and is someone we missed as we advanced"
if nothing else, it looks like she surprised the officers more than anything and their reaction is going to be to put her under physical restraint and figure it out later

see the bottom video in post #13 for a clear view of the actions outlined above.



All the way around, charges against her will likely be dropped, and there will be little to no recourse she or her employer can take as she walked into the middle of a police action and got caught up in it.


And yes, ANYONE is press. But again... being "press" does not mean you can ignore police orders or just go where ever you want during a police action. That is kind of the point... if EVERYONE is press... then EVERYONE cant just ignore police orders.

As shown in the videos you referenced or in the other videos of the confrontation. You also ignored the first part of Huang's tweet - that she had been sending in a video and when she looked up the police had enlarged their perimeter, leaving her inside of it. Any "surprise" she gave them was from their poor work, not by anything she did.

They were far more violent with her than was necessary and she did nothing to provoke them other than being in a place where they did not want any reporters.

She was in a place where they wanted no one, not just "press"

EVERYONE that was where she was located was getting arrested.

So it isnt a "they were targeting "press" sort of thing.

And "press" are not the only ones who can report on what the police are doing. That is why the police wanted no witnesses, press or otherwise.

That in itself is suspicious. Law enforcement is under fire for abuse of power - trying to prevent all witnesses to their activities seems to indicate that they are planning something that they know will be criticized. Too bad for them that their efforts failed and not only their violence against the guy waving the flag - a non-violent protestor - and against a reporter were both videoed.

The whole, "the police were after the press" bit just doesnt hold water.

Everyone has a cell phone. Everyone is the press. Every camera is already rolling.

the thought of... all we have to do is find the person yelling station call letters and arrest them and no one will see what we are doing is just downright laughable.

seriously?

Everyone there was getting arrested. It wasnt just the person saying station call letters.

I said, " That is why the police wanted no witnesses, press or otherwise." I never said that they were only after Huang. I objected to the police violence to someone who was not really obstructing them or offering them violence. The only reason for the police to attack her was that they missed her in their first attempt to clear the area of witnesses and used excessive force in enforcing an order that she tried to obey just not as fast as they wanted.

Since most of the protests have been against police violence, to use additional excessive violence to enforce what is essentially an unconstitutional order is egregious on the part of the police.

Obviously you are intent on picking arguments. So long.

That is exactly the conspiracy theory you are putting forth.

They werent arresting people to keep people from covering them arresting people.

Failing that, is anyone even making that implication or using it as support for a premise or conclusion?

Or are you simply pushing back on a point no one is making?

uuuhhmmm....


the people asserting she shouldnt have been arrested BECAUSE she was press.


PoliticAverse
ms liberty
csziggy
SunSeeker

It happens at the very beginning of this youtube clip:

Needless, gratuitous brutality.

A police officer's word is worthless in any case where police violence is involved. Nothing an involved officer, or the department the officer works for, should ever be taken as true unless backed up by testimony of witnesses independent of the police. In which case the officer's testimony is not necessary.

Officers were clearing the area, telling people to leave, arresting those that didnt and reporter walks up behind/amongst them.

Link to tweet

Because..............surprise................ten or twelve people captured the whole thing on video.

the NPR refuse to settle out of court.

But they're not getting it, just more lies.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/sheriff-villanueva-defends-arrest-of-reporter-covering-protest-in-lynwood/

The real question is - Was this a proper way to engage with a citizen?

Although journalists are considered a special case under the right to free speech in this country, they do not have more rights than the average citizen. The Supreme Court has held that anyone has the right to report on activities, whether they are reporters for corporate media or people posting information online. So any citizen has the right to video police actions as long as they are not interfering with the police.

The other question is - do the police have the right to clear off everyone - press or citizen reporters - so far back that there are no witnesses to their activities?

The protesters, per deputy orders, were dispersing but that was not enough for the sheriff deputies. They started chasing them down the street, and when Huang heard the commotion is when she approached the scene, as the articles note.

I've read articles stating that a whistleblower claims that some of the deputies are part of a gang.