Well, the First Amendment provides freedom to U.S. citizens on many different accounts. But, when it comes to the account of the freedom of the press, I think there should be an exception.
When we talk about violent protests, we envision police officers controlling the matter by many various means necessary, including tear gas, rubber bullets, night sticks, handcuffs etc. Reporters are present within these protests as well, in the the midst of all of the danger, putting their lives at risk for a story. In the heat of the fire, police are known to be as violent as the protestors, it is sometimes just a reflection in order to keep protests at bay. Sometimes when reporters and police meet, police aren’t really thinking freedom of the press most of the time, they are thinking, well, “let’s control the chaos because we have a job to do”.
If a reporter is in the midst of violence, right in the depths of danger, they are putting their self at risk for violent acts by police officers, which is something that they should totally understand upon entering this type of environment. Too many times reporters make a big case out of being slammed around, handcuffed and taken to jail and then have the nerve to ask for the police officers’ names who were responsible for arresting them. The reporters were in a danger zone where police officers’ focus is to control a chaotic crowd and ensure that no one is killed. Yes, you do have the freedom of press clause backing you, but when it comes to violent protests, police have to control the crowd.
If, as a reporter, you’d like to get coverage with minimum risk of getting arrested and taken away from the scene, stand clear of the violence - maybe at a safe distance from all of the action and maybe you’ll get a story to take back to the office. But, claiming that police officers are violating your rights to freedom of the press is unnecessary. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The First Amendment contains clauses protecting speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion (free exercise and establishment). But regardless of which right you are asking about, I would argue that the First Amendment protections should be fairly broad, and that a right can only really be limited when its exercise infringes on the rights of others. For example, as the Supreme Court famously ruled, while one has the right to free speech, this protection does not allow one to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. One has the right to exercise one's religious faith as they see fit, but not to use a public, taxpayer-supported forum (like the public schools) to promote their faith to others. The right to a free press does not give journalists the right to libel a politician. Assemblies can be held publicly as long as they do not endanger the safety of other citizens. So any exceptions to the First Amendment should ensure that the exercise of the rights protected within it does not injure or traduce the rights of other people. Of course, there are often very fine lines to be drawn when considering First Amendment issues, but this is usually the stance taken by the Supreme Court in interpreting it.
https://judiciallearningcenter.org/your-1st-amendment-rights/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
No comments:
Post a Comment