Minnesota now violating the 1st Amendment.

[Moonglow]

The police state at work.

The liberal police state at work.
Get it right, this area is and has been under full control of liberal policies for decades.

There is no delineation of party politics in the police state because both parties created the police state and both sustain it.

 

[pknopp]

It says the journalists were detained, not attacked. Police are allowed, by law, to temporarily detain any individual, regardless of occupation, for reasons of public order and security.

In no way did the police, or government, censor or curtail what the journalists wrote.

Photographing them is a form of intimidation.

It's a way of finding out whether or not they've been infiltrated by agitators, fool.

They can ask for credentials without holding them down and photographing them. All the same, I do NOT have to have credentials to report on their activities.

This ain't a tea party, numbnutz.

Nor does it matter. The courts have consistently ruled that individuals can record the actions of the police.

wrong--not if they interfere/etc

If you can show where anyone was interfering you might have a point.

hhahahahah---you just proved my point--you can't refute it

I can not refute something that never happened. Prove that squirrels are not stealing cars.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is really something wrong in Minnesota.

Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed.

Police in Minnesota round up journalists covering protest, force them on the ground and take pictures of their faces

Now they are attacking journalists. I understand that they do not like this much coverage but sooner or later they are going to have to realize that people are no longer simply going to accept them violating people's rights.

Obama spied on Journalists, democrats support an out of control pedo Intel establishment...why is this a "Surprise"?

He did and none of this is OK.

Sure.

No hard, no foul because it's not illegal when a democrat does it

 

[harmonica]

It says the journalists were detained, not attacked. Police are allowed, by law, to temporarily detain any individual, regardless of occupation, for reasons of public order and security.

In no way did the police, or government, censor or curtail what the journalists wrote.

Photographing them is a form of intimidation.

It's a way of finding out whether or not they've been infiltrated by agitators, fool.

They can ask for credentials without holding them down and photographing them. All the same, I do NOT have to have credentials to report on their activities.

This ain't a tea party, numbnutz.

Nor does it matter. The courts have consistently ruled that individuals can record the actions of the police.

wrong--not if they interfere/etc

If you can show where anyone was interfering you might have a point.

hhahahahah---you just proved my point--you can't refute it

I can not refute something that never happened. Prove that squirrels are not stealing cars.

.....you fked up--DON'T try to double talk babble shit it---you can't take videos/etc of cops if you are interfering

 

[petro]

The police state at work.

The liberal police state at work.
Get it right, this area is and has been under full control of liberal policies for decades.

There is no delineation of party politics in the police state because both parties created the police state and both sustain it.

I am all for pulling the police out of those shitty areas and have a grand experiment to see how well things go.
My bet is the honest people there after a few weeks of The Purge will be begging for that police state that you fear so much from the comfort of your couch.

 

[Mac-7]

It says the journalists were detained, not attacked. Police are allowed, by law, to temporarily detain any individual, regardless of occupation, for reasons of public order and security.

In no way did the police, or government, censor or curtail what the journalists wrote.

Photographing them is a form of intimidation.

It's a way of finding out whether or not they've been infiltrated by agitators, fool.

They can ask for credentials without holding them down and photographing them. All the same, I do NOT have to have credentials to report on their activities.

If you have credentials it gives you some cover and freedom of movement

if you are an ANTIFA leader managing the riot that could be a big advantage

 

[John T. Ford]

There is really something wrong in Minnesota.

Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed.

Police in Minnesota round up journalists covering protest, force them on the ground and take pictures of their faces

Now they are attacking journalists. I understand that they do not like this much coverage but sooner or later they are going to have to realize that people are no longer simply going to accept them violating people's rights.

Isn't Fascism just the beautiful utopia they told you it would be?

 

[fncceo]

I am all for pulling the police out of those shitty areas and have a grand experiment to see how well things go.
My bet is the honest people there after a few weeks of The Purge will be begging for that police state that you fear so much from the comfort of your couch.

I'm all for The Purge... let's start tonight!

 

[martybegan]

There is really something wrong in Minnesota.

Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed.

Police in Minnesota round up journalists covering protest, force them on the ground and take pictures of their faces

Now they are attacking journalists. I understand that they do not like this much coverage but sooner or later they are going to have to realize that people are no longer simply going to accept them violating people's rights.

Blame the Anti-fa/BLM types who put "press" on their protective gear while they are breaking shit.

How do we know these were actual journalists and not poseurs trying to cover their violent activities?

 

[pknopp]

It says the journalists were detained, not attacked. Police are allowed, by law, to temporarily detain any individual, regardless of occupation, for reasons of public order and security.

In no way did the police, or government, censor or curtail what the journalists wrote.

Photographing them is a form of intimidation.

It's a way of finding out whether or not they've been infiltrated by agitators, fool.

They can ask for credentials without holding them down and photographing them. All the same, I do NOT have to have credentials to report on their activities.

If you have credentials it gives you some cover and freedom of movement

if you are an ANTIFA leader managing the riot that could be a big advantage

And all protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[pknopp]

There is really something wrong in Minnesota.

Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed.

Police in Minnesota round up journalists covering protest, force them on the ground and take pictures of their faces

Now they are attacking journalists. I understand that they do not like this much coverage but sooner or later they are going to have to realize that people are no longer simply going to accept them violating people's rights.

Blame the Anti-fa/BLM types who put "press" on their protective gear while they are breaking shit.

How do we know these were actual journalists and not poseurs trying to cover their violent activities?

You ask to see their credentials........even then, you do not have to have them to record what is going on. If you see someone breaking the law you can arrest them.

 

[John T. Ford]

If you have credentials it gives you some cover and freedom of movement

if you are an ANTIFA leader managing the riot that could be a big advantage

Something tells me that after their arrest, these journalist were not feeling that "cover and freedom of movement" you speak of.

 

[Mac-7]

all protected by the 1st Amendment.

Not if you are a terrorist

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is really something wrong in Minnesota.

Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed.

Police in Minnesota round up journalists covering protest, force them on the ground and take pictures of their faces

Now they are attacking journalists. I understand that they do not like this much coverage but sooner or later they are going to have to realize that people are no longer simply going to accept them violating people's rights.

There were no First Amendment violations.

Examples of First Amendment violations concerning freedom of the press:

Journalists arrested and held in detention indefinitely.

News organizations shutdown by the government, publishers arrested, laws passed to criminalize news reports critical of the government.

Government censorship of news organizations because of the content of the information being reported.

None of that occurred; the state police acted in accordance with the restrictions placed on law enforce by the temporary order.

No journalists were arrested and detained in custody.

Journalists continued to report about the protest unimpeded.

The police did not act pursuant to a government-enacted law or measure intended to silence the media.

There is no evidence the government sought to censor the content of the news being reported.

There may have been Fourth Amendment violations, but such violations would be difficult to substantiate.

It’s important that Americans understand that no right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment; government does have the authority to place limits and restrictions on the press provided such limits and restrictions are consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[MarcATL]

all protected by the 1st Amendment.

Not if you are a terrorist

Cite that law liar.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It says the journalists were detained, not attacked. Police are allowed, by law, to temporarily detain any individual, regardless of occupation, for reasons of public order and security.

In no way did the police, or government, censor or curtail what the journalists wrote.

Photographing them is a form of intimidation.

But not a violation of the First Amendment or freedom of the press.

 

[pknopp]

all protected by the 1st Amendment.

Not if you are a terrorist

Yes, even they are. That's why we refused to bring those we claimed to be "terrorists" from other countries into the country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The police state at work.

The liberal police state at work.
Get it right, this area is and has been under full control of liberal policies for decades.

This is a lie.

For decades liberals have fought against rightwing authoritarianism and contempt for citizens’ rights and protected liberties at the ballot box and in the courts.

 

[martybegan]

There is really something wrong in Minnesota.

Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed.

Police in Minnesota round up journalists covering protest, force them on the ground and take pictures of their faces

Now they are attacking journalists. I understand that they do not like this much coverage but sooner or later they are going to have to realize that people are no longer simply going to accept them violating people's rights.

Blame the Anti-fa/BLM types who put "press" on their protective gear while they are breaking shit.

How do we know these were actual journalists and not poseurs trying to cover their violent activities?

You ask to see their credentials........even then, you do not have to have them to record what is going on. If you see someone breaking the law you can arrest them.

A ham sandwich can get some form of "credentials".

 

[pknopp]

There is really something wrong in Minnesota.

Journalists covering a protest in a Minneapolis suburb Friday night were forced on their stomachs by law enforcement, rounded up and were only released after having their face and press credentials photographed.

Police in Minnesota round up journalists covering protest, force them on the ground and take pictures of their faces

Now they are attacking journalists. I understand that they do not like this much coverage but sooner or later they are going to have to realize that people are no longer simply going to accept them violating people's rights.

There were no First Amendment violations.

Examples of First Amendment violations concerning freedom of the press:

Journalists arrested and held in detention indefinitely.

News organizations shutdown by the government, publishers arrested, laws passed to criminalize news reports critical of the government.

Government censorship of news organizations because of the content of the information being reported.

None of that occurred; the state police acted in accordance with the restrictions placed on law enforce by the temporary order.

No journalists were arrested and detained in custody.

Journalists continued to report about the protest unimpeded.

The police did not act pursuant to a government-enacted law or measure intended to silence the media.

There is no evidence the government sought to censor the content of the news being reported.

There may have been Fourth Amendment violations, but such violations would be difficult to substantiate.

It’s important that Americans understand that no right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment; government does have the authority to place limits and restrictions on the press provided such limits and restrictions are consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Trump for violating the First Amendment rights of journalists through his ... criticism into retaliatory action designed to intimidate and silence.”.

PEN America Sues President Trump for Violating Journalists' First Amendment Rights - National Coalition Against Censorship

This is an attempt to intimidate journalists.