I've had a subtheme of Figures of Speech in recent weeks. "The Press" is metonymy, probably going back to a time when the printing press really did "press" etched plates together to create a printed page, although not as far back in time as Johannes Gutenberg's printing press that made the Bible available to German-speaking laypersons.
The press would have referred to the machine, then. The Press had become a metaphor for journalists by the time the Founding Fathers wrote The First Amendment (in December, 1791).
Nowadays, newsgatherers, newspresenters, social commentators and so forth may have a distant relationship with a printing press... so much information and opinion today is neither pressed, nor printed.
The First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The freedom of the press may not be abridged by a Congress-made law, with respect to speech, but press "conduct" is a different matter. Sometimes, conduct is considered speech (such as flag burning as part of a peaceful protest or assembly), but sometime it isn't.
One can use sources, but not drones or hackers. Freedom of speech does not promise or protect or guarantee special access. Freedom of "the press" is not absolute, and nor is freedom of speech absolute.
One may (or may not) face consequences for doxxing, that is, publishing accurate and truthful information, but which infringes on another person's privacy and safety. One can also get into trouble if one exposes State secrets.
Similarly, one may face consequences for publishing false and misleading allegations about another person, particularly if the act is seen to be malicious and in bad faith.
Also, "freedom of the press" does not extend beyond borders, or even to border crossings.
"..,the government may conduct routine inspections and searches at the border without a warrant, which is why press freedom groups advise journalists traveling internationally to carry devices with minimal information."
"Freedom" of the press may not extend to some information-gathering methods that involve trespass, hacking, theft, criminal activity, or fraud. If this is true, one might wonder if some of the reality-tv "sting"-based shows are on the shady side of the law.
Gathering information from "sources" is allowed. Surveillance is not allowed.
Legal bloggers Elana Beiser, Ashley J. Heilprin, and Mary Ellen Roy of Phelps Dunbar LLP share insights into the Department of Justice's guidelines and restrictions with regard to subpoenas, arrests, search warrants, prosecution, and the circumstances under which the DOJ can attempt to compel journalists to surrender documents, digital content, sources, and records.
There are three limited exceptions when the DOJ allows itself to compel journalists to surrender information, as explained in the article. Compulsion only applies to "newsgathering". The lawyers explain:
There's a great deal more information in the article. Please read it."Newsgathering may include:
- Receiving classified information
- Possessing classified information
- Publishing classified information
- Establishing a means of receiving such information, including from an anonymous or confidential source.
Newsgathering is not any of these criminal acts committed while obtaining or using information:
- Breaking and entering
- Theft
- Unlawfully accessing a computer or computer system
- Unlawful surveillance or wiretapping
- Bribery
- Extortion
- Fraud
- Insider trading
- Aiding or abetting or conspiring to engage in such criminal activities, with the requisite criminal intent."
Michael Lambert, legal blogger for Haynes Boone, has much more to say about the freedom (or unfreedom) to gather "news" using drones. Texas has a drone law that protects the rights to privacy of individuals on private property, of private property owners, sports teams, critical infrastructure (pipelines, refineries, power plants), and certain goverment buildings or facilities.
https://www.haynesboone.com/news/publications/fifth-circuit-reverses-ruling-on-texas-drone-law
Mr. Lambert does not make such a frivolous point as this, but what chaos might ensue if every drone-owning citizen journalist hovered their drones over an open-roof American football station and live-streamed the game from their drone to all their friends on social media?
Mr. Lambert explains particular laws that apply to drone operators (or "drone journalists"):
There's a lot more. Whether you are a Texan, a person of interest to journalists, or a drone-enthusiast, Mr. Lambert's is an informative piece. There is also an eye-opening polemic piece titled unfreedom of the press that is well worth looking into."The FAA requires that drone operators follow Part 107 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which requires (1) learning the Part 107 rules; (2) earning a remote pilot certificate; and (3) registering the drone with the FAA.
Part 107 prohibits flying:
- In restricted air spaces without permission. Airspace is restricted near airports, stadiums, military bases, national landmarks, and certain “critical infrastructure.”
- Over 400 feet
- At night without authorization
- Directly over people unless certain conditions are met
- From a moving vehicle or aircraft
- Beyond the operator’s visual line of sight
- In a careless or reckless manner"
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment