http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/16/media/seth-rich-family-response-claims-of-wikileaks-contact/

@Yanik wrote, "there is freedom of press in public areas, but in places restricted from the public, you must be cleared before you can enter. furthermore, some places where you are legally allowed to be, have a different standard of conduct, of which if you violate it, you will be expelled from the building."

A "place restricted from the public" is a PRIVATE place. So why wasn't he arrested for trespassing? Clearly, wherever he was, he had a right to be. Why wasn't he arrested for disturbing the peace? Because he wasn't doing that either.

To me, the charge of "willful disruption of state government processes" is so hard to define that it fails to put the public on notice as to what it takes to commit this crime. Therefore, this charge seems like total bullshit, designed NOT to stand up in court but rather to cause the "violator" to incur legal fees and bail bondsmen fees. That is the pernicious effect of this situation.

@Yanik, fyi here's Chuck Grassley's (R) take on the situation:
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-fcc-should-explain-manhandling-news-reporter-public-meeting

Ever heard of Civil Disobedience?

@Hauta

actually, it's the government equivalent to disturbing the peace. it's not that hard to define.

in any case, i've already said that the arrest was too much, but he needed to be escorted from the premises if he was causing so much trouble.

@Yanik, if it's a law it needs to be on the books. No secret laws in America right?

@Yanik, one more thing..."causing too much trouble" is subjective and easily abused to stifle the press. (I acknowledge your agreement that the arrest was too far. But you need to understand why they need to be able to slot any attempt to stifle the press into a legally defensible classification.)

@James ... I appreciate you reiterating exactly what I said in my first two posts in this thread. What is your point?

@bo

i was responding to your comment IMMEDIATELY above mine, the problem wasn't liberal news, the problem was specifically this thread

@hauta

it's not secret?

My comment that some Trump supporters can't seem to stand that some media sources are both left-leaning and credible? My comment that those two things can actually happen at the same time? Or my comment that some Trump supporters need a larger number of conservative viewpoint news sources over liberal viewpoint news sources in order to go about their day without having an internal electrical shortage since they seem to have absolutely no ability to be skeptical of anything proposed by wealthy, elite men?

What you said has absolutely no relation in the slightest to what I said. So, again - what's your point?

Turns out, the "breach" of the secret service agents was Heyman extending his arm past the agent toward Price. In that outstretched hand, Herman held a cellphone near Price to record Price's answer to Heyman's question. The incident took place in a hallway and the formal complaint did not refer to any government function that was interfered with.

@bo

it was to

"My comment that some Trump supporters can't seem to stand that some media sources are both left-leaning and credible?"

yeah, CAPT and ND were more mad with Hauta than most media in that instance, because of how Hauta framed this.

you're not wrong, but in this context you're not correctly addressing what they're upset about

What's wrong with how I framed it?

you framed it as:

"Freedom of the press is an integral part of the 1st amendment. Just wondering how rightwing media handled or ignored this story about Dan Heyman, the reporter that was arrested for asking persistent questions to Tom Price, HHS Secretary."


but you did not mention at all that he barged past security guards. you said "persistent questions" but that is an inaccurate description by omission of facts.

his charges directly related back to his aggressive behavior. upsetting government processes, is the government equivalent to disturbing the peace

press members know how etiquette in gov't buildings work, stop making this out to be more than it is

Where'd you get the "barged past" bit? Sounds weird. I didn't know that a head fake could get you past the secret service. I kind of hoped they were better than that. I saw that he was waiting in the hallway when Price came by, protected by secret service (and that Heyman reached his cellphone in close to Price, as reporters often do when they record).

@Yanik, what it is, is hitting the press with financial liability (hiring a lawyer, posting bond) to beat a bullshit charge). Chilling effect on media is a big deal isn't it?

bullshit charge? he reached pass secret service agents. if i did that, i might get arrested. Press don't get EXTRA benefits for being press.

you don't reach past government security. just doesn't work that way. it's a threat to the subject's life, and they would have been within their rights to taze him. you listen to security. you don't ignore them. they are there for a reason

One more thing. It was a state law to protect West Virginia state business and Price is not a state of WV employee. More bullshit.

Then charge him for assault.

so you're upset that they gave him a more lenient charge? goddamnit man

I'm saying that charge of assault wasn't possible or else they would've done it. But they were annoyed and wanted to arrest him. So they MIS-used a law designed to protect WV state workers. I'm surprised you are not more upset by it, frankly. I'm used to partisans like ND and Capt_Brad willfully turning a blind eye, but you usually do your research and care about free speech no matter which way it cuts.

goddamnit Hauta this is not some amazing censorship of press. there are security protocols, and he did not follow them. arrest was perhaps excessive, but this is not a giant conspiracy to break down at the first amendment.

it isn't even a minor legal mishap that tore away at the first amendment.

compared to scandals we've seen over the last decade, and the scandals trump has going on now, this is about a 1/10. if that

Great, there are even bigger scandals so no need to think about the first amendment. Funny, just the other day @leon argued that the state existed to protect the rights of man. It's important that this thread concludes with understanding that the press was mistreated by the government, not that we accept such treatment because it was an inconvenience to one guy we don't even know.