I have a question for you (maybe multiple questions) I assume you have heard about 1st Amendment Auditors in the USA. I am familiar with time, place and manner and the public forum document however these 1A Auditors like to scream that they have 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press and what they are doingvis a constitutionality protected activity. As a non-american i believe that these people are misinterpreting what "freedom of the press" means would i be correct in this assumption
generally depends on the situation. On public property, you can film whatever you want and it's protected, but if it gets in the way of law enforcement, puts others in danger, or is on private property (business, people's property, etc,) then it's not protected
The constitutionally protected "freedom of the press" is simply the "freedom of speech." Nothing more or less. It is a protected activity, not a protected class of citizen. Neither is it an elevated authority, prerogative or exemption from the rule of law. If a thief breaks into your house looking for jewels, or a reporter breaks into your house looking for a story, guess what: breaking-and-entering is a crime and both are criminals. A press card is no "Get out of jail for free card" for the reporter. If a reporter corners you on the street, plying you with questions, the reporter is just a Joe Shmo like any other, with no power, no office, no legal prerogative, to make you pay him so much as enough attention to burp at him. The very same "freedom of speech" that extrapolates logically to the "freedom of the press" (i.e., the freedom to publish your "speech") is OUR freedom, collectively, no more and no less than that of the putative "fourth estate." It is the freedom to speak, to write, to post, to comment, to find out by every legal means, to reveal and expose. No reporter or journalist enjoys any greater or lesser freedom by dint of his/her profession than we all do in that respect. Law-enforcement agencies, judges, legislatures all enjoy special powers of subpoena, arrest, incarceration. There are times when journalists seem delusionally to believe their "power of the press" approaches that kind of coercive power, as if "I'm a reporter!" means "So you HAVE to answer me!" It's an utter delusion. Freedom of speech works both ways: the freedom to say what you want and the freedom to say absolutely nothing when you want, and say it (i.e., nothing) to anybody you want. Interestingly, that freedom even encompasses those who've actually been lawfully arrested and charged with crimes: the freedom to be silent. Isn't it ironic how the very freedom we insist upon for those accused of real crimes seems at times to be completely forgotten when the "mob" clamors for this or that person to 'fess up, to answer questions, to intimately reveal what they have done, felt, thought, wanted, intended, all of course fueled by the profit-motive as the news-entertainment-industry pushes the scandal du jour to keep the ratings up? Yes, quite ironic. Mass mania fueled by mass amnesia: "Rights? What rights? The public has a right to know!" As I said above, the "freedom of the press" is a protected activity, not a protected class of citizen. In our suddenly cyber-transformed, social-media-pervaded world the meaning of that freedom, the freedom of that ACTIVITY, takes on more significance, and need of crystal-clear definition, than EVER BEFORE. Because, in fact, we are all, all of us who comment, post, react, discuss, debate, argue, now engaged in that very same activity, i.e., "the press," the printed word, and fall under that constitutionally protected freedom as much as anybody calling themselves "reporters/journalists" ever did. The Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated our computer age and social media. Which is why it's so astonishing how the broad principle of freedom that they enshrined in the constitution so well encompasses the "press" that we have all, to some extent, now become. Press on. 🙂
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs" In a local government building a Citizen/journalist is allowed with a camera as a form of expression But one must be able to get past the gatekeeper of the Time, Place, Manner restrictions placed on 1st amendment activity, 1Time: during regular business hours, 2. Place: standing in a spot that doesn't impeding the flow of traffic in an area open to the general public 3.Manner: recording video and audio which itself is content neutral. The video gives information about the location, What services are offered, location of services and document how to make a FOIA request, and to view SDS sheets. the purpose is to see what services are available, if public officials and employees are capable of carrying out their duties and how they treat the people in doing so. It is of great public interest be able to easily view and monitor public sector agencies, their policies, plans, programs, and projects, to ensure that they are achieving expected results; represent good value for money, How they interact with the public, and ensure they are in compliance with applicable policies, laws, regulations, and ethical standards.
![The SECOND Amendment: The Right to BEAR ARMS [AP Gov Review Unit 3 Topic 5 (3.5)]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9uQNykwdgY4/mqdefault.jpg)
![The SECOND Amendment: The Right to BEAR ARMS [AP Gov Review Unit 3 Topic 5 (3.5)]](/img/tr.png)
![AP Government UNIT 1 REVIEW [Everything You NEED to Know!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lxotd_zV1hc/mqdefault.jpg)
You carried me through WHAP(got a 5), and now your going to carry me through AP Gov....thankyou sooo much
Ayooooooo
I have a question for you (maybe multiple questions)
I assume you have heard about 1st Amendment Auditors in the USA. I am familiar with time, place and manner and the public forum document however these 1A Auditors like to scream that they have 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press and what they are doingvis a constitutionality protected activity. As a non-american i believe that these people are misinterpreting what "freedom of the press" means would i be correct in this assumption
generally depends on the situation. On public property, you can film whatever you want and it's protected, but if it gets in the way of law enforcement, puts others in danger, or is on private property (business, people's property, etc,) then it's not protected
thanks man!
How do we fix our "free press"?
What is the remedy when the big corporations that own all of it also work with/ for our government?
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost." Thomas Jefferson
Anderson Mark Lopez Gary Anderson Cynthia
Johnson Anna Jackson Cynthia Perez Karen
The constitutionally protected "freedom of the press" is simply the "freedom of speech." Nothing more or less.
It is a protected activity, not a protected class of citizen. Neither is it an elevated authority, prerogative or exemption from the rule of law.
If a thief breaks into your house looking for jewels, or a reporter breaks into your house looking for a story, guess what: breaking-and-entering is a crime and both are criminals. A press card is no "Get out of jail for free card" for the reporter.
If a reporter corners you on the street, plying you with questions, the reporter is just a Joe Shmo like any other, with no power, no office, no legal prerogative, to make you pay him so much as enough attention to burp at him.
The very same "freedom of speech" that extrapolates logically to the "freedom of the press" (i.e., the freedom to publish your "speech") is OUR freedom, collectively, no more and no less than that of the putative "fourth estate." It is the freedom to speak, to write, to post, to comment, to find out by every legal means, to reveal and expose. No reporter or journalist enjoys any greater or lesser freedom by dint of his/her profession than we all do in that respect.
Law-enforcement agencies, judges, legislatures all enjoy special powers of subpoena, arrest, incarceration. There are times when journalists seem delusionally to believe their "power of the press" approaches that kind of coercive power, as if "I'm a reporter!" means "So you HAVE to answer me!" It's an utter delusion.
Freedom of speech works both ways: the freedom to say what you want and the freedom to say absolutely nothing when you want, and say it (i.e., nothing) to anybody you want. Interestingly, that freedom even encompasses those who've actually been lawfully arrested and charged with crimes: the freedom to be silent.
Isn't it ironic how the very freedom we insist upon for those accused of real crimes seems at times to be completely forgotten when the "mob" clamors for this or that person to 'fess up, to answer questions, to intimately reveal what they have done, felt, thought, wanted, intended, all of course fueled by the profit-motive as the news-entertainment-industry pushes the scandal du jour to keep the ratings up? Yes, quite ironic. Mass mania fueled by mass amnesia: "Rights? What rights? The public has a right to know!"
As I said above, the "freedom of the press" is a protected activity, not a protected class of citizen. In our suddenly cyber-transformed, social-media-pervaded world the meaning of that freedom, the freedom of that ACTIVITY, takes on more significance, and need of crystal-clear definition, than EVER BEFORE. Because, in fact, we are all, all of us who comment, post, react, discuss, debate, argue, now engaged in that very same activity, i.e., "the press," the printed word, and fall under that constitutionally protected freedom as much as anybody calling themselves "reporters/journalists" ever did.
The Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated our computer age and social media. Which is why it's so astonishing how the broad principle of freedom that they enshrined in the constitution so well encompasses the "press" that we have all, to some extent, now become.
Press on.
🙂
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs"
In a local government building a Citizen/journalist is allowed with a camera as a form of expression But one must be able to get past the gatekeeper of the Time, Place, Manner restrictions placed on 1st amendment activity,
1Time: during regular business hours,
2. Place: standing in a spot that doesn't impeding the flow of traffic in an area open to the general public
3.Manner: recording video and audio which itself is content neutral. The video gives information about the location, What services are offered, location of services and document how to make a FOIA request, and to view SDS sheets. the purpose is to see what services are available, if public officials and employees are capable of carrying out their duties and how they treat the people in doing so. It is of great public interest be able to easily view and monitor public sector agencies, their policies, plans, programs, and projects, to ensure that they are achieving expected results; represent good value for money, How they interact with the public, and ensure they are in compliance with applicable policies, laws, regulations, and ethical standards.
Hi dad
wha
school
🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘