In the US, the framers of the Constitution rightly made freedom of expression the First Amendment because it’s the most important. President Donald Trump is, of course, fanatically in favor of his own freedom of expression rights, but not so much when it comes to anyone else. Trump has dog-whistled his intention to suppress protest to his most ardent supporters capable of such suppression.
As a result, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently published a map (current as of 3 March 2017) of proposed state legislation that would severely limit the right to peaceful protest. So severe, that it has prompted a United Nations (UN) intervention as “incompatible with US obligations under international human rights law.”
David Kaye, special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Maina Kiai, special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association wrote a joint letter (.pdf; 103KB) to Charge d’Affaires ad interim, US Mission to the United Nations, Theodore Allegra, outlining specific freedom of expression and assembly human rights conflicts in proposed legislation introduced in 16 states between 26 May 2015 and 23 February 2017.
Adam Gabbatt writing for the Guardian cites Vera Eidelman who works for the ACLU in its speech, privacy, and technology project referring to more than 30 pieces of proposed legislation focused on stifling the right to peacefully protest introduced since election day:
“The proposed bills have been especially pervasive in states where protests flourished recently.
“This flood of bills represents an unprecedented level of hostility towards protesters in the 21st century. And many of these bills attack the right to speak out precisely where the supreme court has historically held it to be the most robust: in public parks, streets and sidewalks.”
Reporter arrested for asking a question
On 9 May 2017, Dan Heyman, a West Virginia-based reporter for the Public News Service was arrested when he repeatedly attempted to question US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price.
Price was walking in a public hallway in the West Virginia Capitol and Heyman asked him — with his arm extended, recording on his phone — if domestic violence would qualify as a pre-existing condition under the Republican’s proposed healthcare bill. Price apparently ignored Heyman’s question, which Heyman subsequently repeated. At that point, Camila Domonoske writing for National Public Radio (NPR) reports that, “… officials say he [Heyman] was ‘trying aggressively’ to breach Secret Service security.”
“Heyman was handcuffed, arrested, and charged with ‘willful disruption of governmental processes.’” He was subsequently released on a US$5,000 bond.
Public News Service journalist Dan Heyman and his attorney, Tim diPiero, address the media after Heyman’s release from jail on a US$5,000 bond.
Domonoske reports that the criminal complaint against Heyman alleges “aggressively breaching the Secret Service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area” and “causing a disturbance by yelling questions.”
The criminal complaint under which Heyman was charged cites a West Virginia law, the first section of which reads:
“If any person willfully interrupts or molests the orderly and peaceful process of any department, division, agency, or branch of state government or of its political subdivisions, he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than US$100, or confined in jail not more than six months, or both fined and confined: Provided, That any assembly in a peaceable, lawful and orderly manner for a redress of grievances shall not be a violation of this section.”
As Jamie Lynn Crofts and Eli Baumwell writing for the ACLU note, it’s an important distinction that “… Heyman was actually targeted for reporting on matters critical to the public interest — not in a closed meeting or the inside of a working office, but in the hallways of a government building.”
Samantha Schmidt writing for the Washington Post cites HHS Secretary Price as defending the police who arrested Heyman, saying they “did what they felt was appropriate.”
Reporter roughed up for asking questions
John Donnelly, a reporter for CQ Roll Call and chair of the National Press Club’s Press Freedom Team, was “manhandled” and forced to leave a government building by US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) security guards on 18 May 2017. Donnelly’s crime? He “tried to politely ask questions of FCC commissioners,” according to Julie Schoo writing for the National Press Club.
Schoo writes that Donnelly told her that the security guards had “shadowed” him “as if he were a security threat” throughout the FCC’s entire scheduled press conference, even when he went to the bathroom. When Donnelly approached FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly to ask a question, “… two guards pinned Donnelly against the wall with the backs of their bodies until O’Rielly had passed,” reports Schoo. “O’Rielly witnessed this and continued walking.”
Frederick Bucher, head of the FCC’s security operations center, subsequently forced Donnelly “to leave the building entirely under implied threat of force,” Schoo reported, noting that Bucher has a history of harassing at least one other journalist. “Bloomberg News reporter Todd Shields told Donnelly today that Bucher took his (Shields’) press badge last July when Shields was talking to a protester at an FCC meeting,” she writes.
Lock them all up
Michael S. Schmidt writing for the New York Times reports that President Trump asked James Comey — former director of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — to cancel the federal investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, citing a memo Comey wrote after the meeting.
“The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the [US] Justice Department and FBI investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia,” Schmidt wrote. That same day, 16 May 2017, US Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chair of the US House Oversight Committee, “demanded that the FBI turn over all ‘memoranda, notes, summaries and recordings’ of discussions” between Trump and Comey, reported Schmidt.
A potentially more interesting statement by Trump is partially buried in Schmidt’s piece:
“Alone in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.”
This is so very wrong for so many reasons it’s difficult to know where to start. First off, I suppose, the FBI — not even its director — doesn’t put people in prison. That would be the job of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Secondly, here in the US — at least for now — we don’t put journalists in prison for publishing classified information.
Trump’s apparent political leader role models — Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines), Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (Egypt), Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey), and Vladimir Putin (Russia) are all well known for tossing journalists in jail (or worse) for merely criticizing their respective country’s policies and politicians.
If you see a pattern developing here, you’re not hallucinating. Upon taking office, President Trump has referred to reporters and news organizations as the “enemy of the people,” according to Jenna Johnson and Matea Gold writing for the Washington Post. Trump has also parroted Steve Bannon, his White House chief strategist, in referring to the media as the “opposition party,” according to John Wagner writing for the Washington Post.
Joe Strupp writing for Media Matters for America cites Lucy Dalglish, former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and current dean of the journalism school at the University of Maryland, as saying that prosecution of reporters is mostly related to refusal to reveal sources, not the content they publish. “The government has never actually charged a journalist for publishing secrets, publishing national security information. They have always gone the route of charging the leaker, not the reporter,” Dalglish told Strupp. “It would have a dramatic and instant stifling effect on the flow of information about what is going on in that administration to the public. It would be almost instantaneous.”
Strupp cites a powerful statement from Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
“The comments attributed to President Trump cross a dangerous line. But no president gets to jail journalists. Reporters are protected by judges and juries, by a congress that relies on them to stay informed, and by a Justice Department that for decades has honored the role of a free press by spurning prosecutions of journalists for publishing leaks of classified information.
“Comments such as these, emerging in the way they did, only remind us that every day public servants are reaching out to reporters to ensure the public is aware of the risks today to rule of law in this country. The president’s remarks should not intimidate the press but inspire it.”
Amend or abolish the First Amendment
On 30 April 2017, a jaw-dropping exchange took place between ABC News chief Washington correspondent and chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl and President Trump’s White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Karl’s interview clearly reveals that Trump is actively considering either amending or abolishing the First Amendment:
“KARL: I want to ask you about two things the president has said on related issues. First of all, there was what he said about opening up the libel laws. Tweeting ‘the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?’ That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?
“PRIEBUS: I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story. But when you have articles out there that have no basis or fact and we’re sitting here on 24/7 cable companies writing stories about constant contacts with Russia and all these other matters.…
“KARL: So you think the president should be able to sue the New York Times for stories he doesn’t like?
“PRIEBUS: Here’s what I think. I think that newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news. I am so tired.
“KARL: I don’t think anybody would disagree with that. It’s about whether or not the president should have a right to sue them.
“PRIEBUS: And I already answered the question. I said this is something that is being looked at. But it’s something that as far as how it gets executed, where we go with it, that’s another issue.”
Let’s go to the tape for what could possibly be the most horrifying 64 second interview in recent memory:
ABC News chief Washington correspondent and chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl interviews President Donald Trump’s White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, 30 April 2017.
Authoritative, canonical source: Trend to neuter US First Amendment.
Copyright © 2018 ARTS & FARCES LLC. All rights reserved. | ISSN: 1535-8119 | OCLC: 48219498
Your use of this syndication feed is subject to the ARTS & FARCES LLC syndication policy.