United Nations in Salt Lake City / Claims International Territory & Shuts Down Journalists (Video)

So what say you Mitt Romney?

Well here's one for the New World Order. So back at the United Nations, seems that they held a conference in Salt Lake City Utah but wanted the journalists to turn their cameras off? Of course none of the MSM is reporting out on it but several other outlets are running with the video.

Link

United Nations police admit they took over part of an American city (Salt Lake) and that journalists' right to record public officers was denied because it was a "UN Compound" and the journalist had no right to record public servants as guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US

Fox News

In the first United Nations conference outside New York City in the united States of America, the UN took over Salt Palace in Salt Lake City, Utah and claimed it was “international territory.” In the process, the were shutting down a journalist’s rights to video. On August 26, 27, 28 of 2019, the United Nations procured the venue of Salt Palace in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah for a conference. The Utah state legislature provided $650,000 for the conference.

The Washington Standard

United Nations Silences Utah Journalist

So what say you?

If I was a Utah resident I would be pissed that money got spent on those weenies. If they want something in international territory they need to go out in the ocean or down to Antarctica. Just get them off of US soil it has been too long they have leeched off our citizens and resources

Time to show the UN the door.

a reply to: Waterglass

I say #$%^ THE UN. and any local sell out government that allows for the abridgement of our Bill of Rights.

They can take their Agendas, and GTFO, the United States.

The rights of our Journalists do not apply to coverage of a United Nations event. The UN does not have to abide by American laws, even on American soil. All of the members, other than American representative have diplomatic immunity while here, they are not puppets of our media in this country.

Sounds like somebody got pissed because some people told him/her no.

They used to call that sour grapes.

a reply to: rickymouse
Sourgrapes or not...

I call it a fking atrocious act if an entity from outside a country is allowed to confiscate land and make it "international territory" by some power hungry pencil pushers.

It is the elephant in the room. It is different from embassy affairs.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: rickymouse
Sourgrapes or not...

I call it a fking atrocious act if an entity from outside a country is allowed to confiscate land and make it "international territory" by some power hungry pencil pushers.

It is the elephant in the room. It is different from embassy affairs.

We have rights to deny the press from taking pictures of us on our own property if we are not breaking the law. Now, when they rented the whole place, that became theirs for a period of time, they have rights to privacy just as we do.

a reply to: rickymouse

Private rights are different of course and I do not advocate invading their private rights.

What I get from reading the thread, because I get a pesky message that says I am out of luck and can not read it...

Is that he was denied to roam the public streets in general, not the backyard of their housings.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: rickymouse

Private rights are different of course and I do not advocate invading their private rights.

What I get from reading the thread, because I get a pesky message that says I am out of luck and can not read it...

Is that he was denied to roam the public streets in general, not the backyard of their housings.

They probably knew he was not going to let them alone, He may have been very pushy with them there, there are very pushy reporters out there. There are also some good reporters out there. Just because they denied him does not mean all reporters were denied access.

a reply to: rickymouse
Now we are speculating inter-personal relationship things. I get what you mean but now it is just speculation about the reasons.

Using the left’s logic as applied to the UN instead of Trump, it’s obvious the UN has something to hide.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
call it a fking atrocious act if an entity from outside a country is allowed to confiscate land and make it "international territory" by some power hungry pencil pushers.

From what I read in the article they rented the venue.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: rickymouse
Now we are speculating inter-personal relationship things. I get what you mean but now it is just speculation about the reasons.

The information we have to work with can only form speculation. We do not have enough information to conclude anything, just to debate possibilities that might have some basis. You cannot debate without opposing viewpoints otherwise it is just reinforcement of beliefs.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
The article also says

..claimed "international territory"...

Maybe I got hung up on my translation, I am not faultless. If they rented the whole place then of course the whole thing is a joke

a reply to: rickymouse
I agree and I enjoyed the civil talk

originally posted by: rickymouse
The rights of our Journalists do not apply to coverage of a United Nations event. The UN does not have to abide by American laws, even on American soil. All of the members, other than American representative have diplomatic immunity while here, they are not puppets of our media in this country.

Sounds like somebody got pissed because some people told him/her no.

They used to call that sour grapes.

Fine. Does that give them permission to take away the rights of US citizens lawfully on their own soil?

originally posted by: Oleandra88
The article also says

..claimed "international territory"...

Not sure about what was claimed, however on private property you don't have First Amendment protections.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I understand it

I had the impression that it was claimed. I checked seized translates the same word. Oh my, how embarrassin duh.

a reply to: rickymouse

Except this isn't the UN's property is it?

Were they granted rights to that property or did they just move in and declare it theirs for however long they needed to? And if they did that, then what stops them from contravening US law and US rights wherever they really feel like it? What good us US sovereignty or the sovereignty of any other nation, for that matter, if the UN just decides it wants to override it?

a reply to: ketsuko

They rented the venue, it's the same as if anyone else rented it, they can choose to permit journalists or not.

I'm not a fan of the United Nations but this looks like a clickbait article to me.