Cross-posted from https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/55777869
A judge has denied the Los Angeles Police Department’s emergency motion asking to lift an injunction that restricts the use of force against the press. That denial comes after the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Friday to request the city attorney’s office withdraw the emergency motion.
LAPD filed the emergency motion in an attempt to lessen the use-of-force restrictions against journalists ahead of Saturday’s No Kings protests, where large crowds are expected.
The City Council motion, brought forward by councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Monica Rodgriguez, cited that it was in response to LAist’s reporting.
Adam Rose, press rights chair at the Los Angeles Press Club, in a written statement said, “My read is the motion was mainly denied on procedural grounds. The false emergency was of LAPD’s own making.”
Did I even read what? Your barely legible comments? Yes. The article? Yes. The 1st Amendment? Also yes.
The 1st Amendment says nothing about “working for a news agency” in order to exercise said right, so you’ll need to list the specific law you’re referring to when you’re making these claims about what it says, especially the parts about requiring people “to work for a news agency” and allowing people to “act any way they want.” These are both absurd claims not backed by any law I’ve ever heard of nor do they make any sense.
The article clearly lists the reasons why they wanted to suspend the Constitution, namely that by not doing so theyre exposing themselves to liability after already paying out $68 million for violating people’s rights and also to make their jobs easier.
You read the article? Really? Why lie? The article is about a state of california court, city council, and local police department. Search on the word constitution and you will only find this.
"We expect demonstrations this weekend to be safe, respectful and consistent with the rights guaranteed to every resident under the Constitution.”
I was wrong on it being about a law, it was about an injunction. The injuction was related to the law I looked up about Californias definition of a journalist. Which is the reason for the dispute. The injunction uses the term journalist which based on the law is both unprovable on the scene, and specifies working for a news organiztion. Neither the injunction, nor the law that defined journalist made an exception for that person who claims to be a jounalist participating in or instigating violence.
What has been seen in portland is right wing streamers, claiming to be untouchable because they are “media”. All while they try to start fights with the protestors.
🤦♂️ the US Constitution supersedes state and local laws when they conflict with one another. You should have recognized the context clues from the section you quoted as they’re saying the exact same thing that I am.
So quote the law then. Its a simple copy and paste. Please point out the sections where it states that people can “act however they want” at a protest provided they claim to be a journalist. Also quote where it states journalists must work for a news organization, bonus points if you also provide the accompanying list of “approved news organizations” that would be needed for such a law to exist.
This is my backyard and many of these people have been arrested for disorderly conduct as this isn’t a protected right whether you’re a journalist or not. Also why are you bringing up Portland when you chastised me because “the article is about a state of california court, city council, and local police department.”
This is pure nonsense.
You really just want someone to disagree with, I get that. But we are actually saying the same thing. The faxt. That the constitution protects these rights is exactly why when the police ask to remove this injuction it doesn’t change the overall protection given bythe constitution. It only changes the flawed state level injuction that is protecting people trying to create a riot from a peaceful protest.
It’s technically more than one law, but this link should take you to the part where they define journalist (they call it newsman which tells you how outdated it is) https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/california/#a-shield-law-statute
As for the injunction, I had it a little off. It was in fact a federal court. But it applied to DHS AND the police. The police were asking to be excluded for the reasons I have stated.
My ,ention of portland was to say that they learned of the tactic being used there, and wanted to prevent it in LA.