[RD] GOP war on the First Amendment

Zkribbler

Deity
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
8,326
Location
Philippines
Voting along straight party lines, the Arizona Senate has passed a bill which would classify any demonstration during which any property is damaged as a "riot." Organizers, even if they did not damage the property and even if they did everything humanly possible to prevent this damage, would be classified as conspirators. This would trigger anti-organized-crime laws, which would subject the property of protest organizers to immediate confiscation.

the Phoenix New Times observed: “Plan a protest, lose your house.”

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/1r/bills/sb1142p.pdf
 
The plutocrats are playing hardball. Just look at the way they crushed the Dakota Pipeline protest.
 
Voting along straight party lines, the Arizona Senate has passed a bill which would classify any demonstration during which any property is damaged as a "riot." Organizers, even if they did not damage the property and even if they did everything humanly possible to prevent this damage, would be classified as conspirators. This would trigger anti-organized-crime laws, which would subject the property of protest organizers to immediate confiscation.

the Phoenix New Times observed: “Plan a protest, lose your house.”

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/1r/bills/sb1142p.pdf
Okay, I can see planted protesters deliberately destroying stuff even more than they do now.
 
I read that Trump has started banning some major media outlets (BBC, CNN etc.) from press briefings as well. There are some ominous winds blowing in the Western hemisphere at the moment.
 
Spicer barred CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Buzzfeed, and Politico from a press briefing. Associated Press, Time magazine, and USA Today walked out in protest. Wall Street Journal says if it has realized what was happening, it too would have walked.

CNN and other news outlets were blocked on Friday from attending an off-camera White House press briefing that other reporters were hand-picked to attend, raising alarm among media organizations and First Amendment watchdogs.

The decision struck veteran White House journalists as unprecedented in the modern era, and escalated tensions in the already fraught relationship between the Trump administration and the press.

The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico and BuzzFeed were also among those excluded from the meeting, which was held in White House press secretary Sean Spicer's office. The meeting, which is known as a gaggle, was held in lieu of the daily televised Q-and-A session in the White House briefing room.

When reporters from these news organizations tried to enter Spicer's office for the gaggle, they were told they could not attend because they were not on the list of attendees.

In a brief statement defending the move, administration spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the White House "had the pool there so everyone would be represented and get an update from us today."

The White House press pool usually includes representatives from one television outlet, one radio outlet and one print outlet, as well as reporters from a few wire services. In this case, four of the five major television networks -- NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News -- were invited and attended the meeting, while only CNN was blocked.

And while The New York Times was kept out, conservative media organizations Breitbart News, The Washington Times and One America News Network were also allowed in.

"This is an unacceptable development by the Trump White House," CNN said in a statement. Apparently this is how they retaliate when you report facts they don't like. We'll keep reporting regardless."

New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet wrote, "Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties. We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest."

The White House press office had informed reporters earlier that the traditional, on-camera press briefing would be replaced by a gaggle in Spicer's office, reporters in attendance said. Asked about the move by the White House Correspondents Association, the White House said it would take the press pool and invite others as well.

The WHCA protested that decision on the grounds that it would unfairly exclude certain news organizations, the reporters said. The White House did not budge, and when reporters arrived at Spicer's office, White House communications officials only allowed in reporters from specific media outlets.

CNN reporters attempted to access the gaggle when it began at about 1:45 p.m. ET. As they walked with a large group of fellow journalists from the White House briefing room toward Spicer's office, an administration official turned them around, informing them CNN wasn't on the list of attendees.

Reporters from The Associated Press, Time magazine and USA Today decided in the moment to boycott the briefing because of how it was handled.

Asked during the gaggle whether CNN and The New York Times were blocked because the administration was unhappy with their reporting, Spicer responded: "We had it as pool, and then we expanded it, and we added some folks to come cover it. It was my decision to expand the pool."

Several news outlets spoke out against the White House's decision.

"The Wall Street Journal strongly objects to the White House's decision to bar certain media outlets from today's gaggle," a Journal spokesman said. "Had we known at the time, we would not have participated and we will not participate in such closed briefings in the future."

The White House move was called "appalling" by Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron, who said the Trump administration is on "an undemocratic path."

Politico editor-in-chief John Harris said that "selectively excluding news organizations from White House briefings is misguided."

Said BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith: "While we strongly object to the White House's apparent attempt to punish news outlets whose coverage it does not like, we won't let these latest antics distract us from continuing to cover this administration fairly and aggressively."

The Associated Press said it "believes the public should have as much access to the president as possible."

The White House Correspondents Association also protested the move.

"The WHCA board is protesting strongly against how today's gaggle is being handled by the White House," it said in a statement. "We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not. The board will be discussing this further with White House staff."

Related: Trump rips media, repeats 'enemy of the people' line

Hours earlier, at the Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington, President Trump mocked and disparaged the news media. He said that much of the press represents "the enemy of the people."

"They are the enemy of the people because they have no sources," Trump said. "They just make them up when there are none."

He also said reporters "shouldn't be allowed" to use unnamed sources.
 
Does Trump take any unscripted questions?
 
asset forfeiture laws are unconstitutional, they violate the 5th Amendment's protection of property owners

on the other hand, if the protest I organized turns violent and property is destroyed shouldn't I be partly liable for the damage?
 
asset forfeiture laws are unconstitutional, they violate the 5th Amendment's protection of property owners
on the other hand, if the protest I organized turns violent and property is destroyed shouldn't I be partly liable for the damage?

A Law against paying protesters to be violent and causing damage makes sense
A blanket laws to make the protest organisor pay for all damage regardless of whom caused that damage simply dumb. And Republicans know it is dumb, they know exactly what the law is going to do
 
asset forfeiture laws are unconstitutional, they violate the 5th Amendment's protection of property owners

on the other hand, if the protest I organized turns violent and property is destroyed shouldn't I be partly liable for the damage?
No.

Because there's no way you can vet who shows up to a protest. Group punishment has been with us for as long as the story of the Plagues cast Moses as the good guy. But it's not a reasonable burden to put on someone who has the constitutional right to protest. To make them responsible for someone else's actions.
 
Do you think that AZ will pass a law making the registered owner of gun responsible for any crime committed using that gun?
 
the Arizona Senate has passed a bill which would classify any demonstration during which any property is damaged as a "riot."

This I don't really have a problem with. However...

Organizers, even if they did not damage the property and even if they did everything humanly possible to prevent this damage, would be classified as conspirators. This would trigger anti-organized-crime laws, which would subject the property of protest organizers to immediate confiscation.

This is outrageous. Organizers should only be punished if they can be linked to any property damage that occurs during a protest they planned. And even then, the punishment should not be property forfeiture. They should just have to make restitution with the property owner and maybe do some prison time if the offense was particularly severe.
 
Spicer barred CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Buzzfeed, and Politico from a press briefing. Associated Press, Time magazine, and USA Today walked out in protest. Wall Street Journal says if it has realized what was happening, it too would have walked.

Kicking agencies out of press conferences does not violate freedom of the press and the first amendment. They can write whatever they want about Trump. They always do, in fact; evidence and solid sources be damned. But there are always concerns about transparency. Honest question, what does the law say? Is this just a breach of custom, or does it violate a law of some sort regarding transparency?

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with how he treats these monsters during his press conferences. Sneering at them, blowing off their questions, insulting the reporters, high-handed scorn, I've never seen anything like it. It's just awesome. I could not be happier that things like this are "escalating tensions in the already fraught relationship between the Trump administration and the press," as your article puts it. I wouldn't piss on CNN and the NY Times if they were on fire. I'm so glad they're going down in flames. Thanks again, internet.
 
Spicer barred CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Buzzfeed, and Politico from a press briefing. Associated Press, Time magazine, and USA Today walked out in protest. Wall Street Journal says if it has realized what was happening, it too would have walked.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cowardice-and-freedom

"I think it is both more accurate and more productive to see this as cowardice rather than some sacrilege against journalism. "
 
By being too selective on who they give access to, they're effectively creating a state media. When Trump was lying about how big his electoral victory was (why? why does he even lie about such things???), it was the media that stood up to him.

As to the 'solid sources' thing ... I don't know why you think they don't have them. Oh wait, I think I do. Don't worry, 45 thinks that the media shouldn't be allowed to use anonymouse sources. Soon his little army will be tweeting that too.
 
Kicking agencies out of press conferences does not violate freedom of the press and the first amendment. They can write whatever they want about Trump. They always do, in fact; evidence and solid sources be damned. But there are always concerns about transparency. Honest question, what does the law say? Is this just a breach of custom, or does it violate a law of some sort regarding transparency?

Remember facts have a Liberal Bias

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with how he treats these monsters during his press conferences. Sneering at them, blowing off their questions, insulting the reporters, high-handed scorn, I've never seen anything like it. It's just awesome. I could not be happier that things like this are "escalating tensions in the already fraught relationship between the Trump administration and the press," as your article puts it. I wouldn't piss on CNN and the NY Times if they were on fire. I'm so glad they're going down in flames. Thanks again, internet.

I imagine this treatment of the IC, Neighbouring countries, US traditional Allies is making all the Trumpsters feel really good. At least for now
Of course likely to have unforeseen consequences and blowback

As much as I would love to see Republican media like FoxNews, get it. When Obama tried to ban them from press conference. All the liberal media like NYT, CNN, WP objected and so Fox news wasnt execluded from the WH press conferences. Now that the shoes is on the other foot. Not so much. I guess this will be a new precedence
 
Last edited:
As to the 'solid sources' thing ... I don't know why you think they don't have them. Oh wait, I think I do. Don't worry, 45 thinks that the media shouldn't be allowed to use anonymouse sources. Soon his little army will be tweeting that too.

And yet his Chief of Staff is now outraged because he told a reporter that he was "speaking on background" (as an anonymous source) and the reporter followed the boss's instruction and outed him. He also outed Mr Preibus as claiming (anonymously) that he was speaking for unnamed others as well so he should be treated as not only a source but a corroborated source. Not surprisingly, the tale being put out this way appears to be total fiction.
 
Let me see.

Conspiracy; classification

A. A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent to promote or
aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more
persons that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct
constituting the offense and one of the parties commits an overt act in
furtherance of the offense, except that an overt act shall not be required
if the object of the conspiracy was to commit any felony on the person of
another, or to commit an offense under section 13-1508, 13-1704 or 13-2903

B. If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined in subsection A of this section,
knows or has reason to know that a person with whom such person conspires
to commit an offense has conspired with another person or persons to commit
the same offense, such person is guilty of conspiring to commit the offense with
such other person or persons, whether or not such person knows their identity.


Riot: Classification

A. A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person
recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is
accompanied by immediate power of execution, which either disturbs the public peace or
results in damage to the property of another person.

B. Riot is a class 5 felony.


The real question is who controls the public prosecutor, or whatever they call them, in Arizona.

For instance, if an Arizonan can not keep up payments on their car and the two person repo team threatens to
break into their garage, then the chief executive of the loan company goes to gaol for conspiracy to riot.
 
On CFC OT, this should be called the BvBPL law.

It's basically moderates' dream. Now you'll have perfectly peaceful protests, or none at all. Awesome!
 
Top Bottom