WV Journalist arrested, charged after asking HHS Secretary Tom Price a question

originally posted by: Liquesence
if one is not breaking a law ...

This is obviously the crucial point. Officials have as much right as anyone else to protection from some kinds of aggressive behaviour.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Questioning does not break a law, no matter the extent of the questioning of a public official in public and in course of one's duties, so far as I know.

a reply to: Liquesence
Apparently the point at issue was the manner of the questioning.
If there was physical harassment, that is usually a legal offence even in a public place.

Causing a disturbance by yelling questions? I think I can use this ...

Detective: "I'll ask you this one more time, where were you at 10pm on August 23?"

Me: "That's it, buddy. You're under arrest."

--------

Me: "Because I said so!"

Two year old: "But why?"

Me: [dials 911]

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: mobiusmale

that reporters would face consequences for knowingly publishing false stories that are damaging to the individuals that they are about

They do face consequences for knowingly publishing falsehoods. For a public official it's called actual malice (NYT v. Sullivan); for ordinary citizens, it's simple libel.

The requirement to prove "malice" leaves public officials wide open to unfair abuses, and leaves the door wide open for lazy or ill-intentioned journalists, to propagate claims that are even knowingly false. A reporter or broadcaster merely has to say, "Well, I did not publish this lie with outright intent to destroy the person I was maligning...I just thought the information, true or false, would be interesting to the paying public."

I think it is a fair debate to have, if journalists should be required to take the same care with damaging information as everyone else. Any in any event, it is not about jailing people who print "negative" stories...it about taking people to task who print "false" stories.

Can you immagine what it would be like if reporters were allowed to come up to the president at any time to ask him questions, no matter where he was or what meeting he was in. It is the same way with anyone running things. What would happen if reporters were allowed to hound the head of a big Pharma company or Monsanto and they were not allowed to say no. First thing, a few reporters would be disappearing quickly. Second, every reporter would have a big lawsuit on them and so would the agency they worked for. Freedom of the press has limitations. That reporter was breaking the law. I also think our government should take legal action against his employer for having him as an employee. Our government can sue companies. Less taxes we have to pay.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

If what you're saying is true and there is no partisan slant to it, then it is a gross violation of rights and should be investigated.

Politicians are public servants.

They are the hired help.

They are our bitches.

I suggest that you get some press credentials and storm into the US Capitol Building during a joint session of Congress and start shouting questions.
Them 'bitches' will have you in cuffs in no time flat.

I know.

And they won't even make me sammiches either.

The problem of man.
Won't even make you a damn sammich.

If he wanted to ask a question, he can go to the media. Stalking is illegal in any country, not just in the US.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
If he wanted to ask a question, he can go to the media. Stalking is illegal in any country, not just in the US.

He IS the media.

He's a journalist.

The guy was being a complete jerk. He wasn't just "asking a question."

a reply to: Liquesence
Here's a hint ..when you get tossed out don't go back and repeat the same behavior.

eeeeeerrrrright

At least post a pic from the crime scene

pushing something in someones face is assault. So this guy got what was coming to him.

a reply to: Liquesence

To be honest, harassing anybody, even tough one works at public adminstration - one still enjoys rights for decent treatment and a level of privacy - that an annoyance like that should certainly be approached seriously.

Sometimes, a jerk does not know much about human decensy before a judge has set him right.

So, I guess that dim whip earned what ever came on him.

The problem with members of the media and politicians is that both don't feel that their defecation is malodorous.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The problem with members of the media and politicians is that both don't feel that their defecation is malodorous.

My farts smell like roses.
At least that is what I tell my kids.
They disagree vehemently.

a reply to: deckdel
a reply to: yuppa


The thing is, though, is this, and why it's such a problem (IMO):

Had there been a whole gaggle of reporters along with him doing the same thing (as we have seen time and time again), nothing likely would have happened.

We've seen public officials come out of meetings, etc only to be hounded by reporters, demanding questions, shoving microphones, wielding cameras, and the public official simply walk away, or through, escorted by whatever security detail he has.

I would argue that, because he was a lone reporter in this instance, he was summarily arrested.

This guy appears to have been doing what journalists have always done, but he was arrested for it.

That is a problem. A big one.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Liquesence
Here's a hint ..when you get tossed out don't go back and repeat the same behavior.

He's a hint: guy was doing what journalists do all the time, which is not against the law. Only because he was the only persisting is likely why he was arrested. After all, he was only arrested for "causing a disturbance by yelling questions at Ms. Conway and Secretary Price."

THAT is FROM the complaint.

THAT is not against the law. It's a BS charge.

Authorities . . . Heyman was “aggressively breaching” the agents to the point where they were “forced to remove him a couple of times from the area,"

He was removed "a couple of times" while avoiding security?
Didn't read article yet, but that already makes me wonder.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Liquesence
Apparently the point at issue was the manner of the questioning.
If there was physical harassment, that is usually a legal offence even in a public place.

The manner of questioning apparently was the volume and the tactic of not relenting the questioning, neither of which are against the law to my knowledge.

If there was physical harassment, that would be noted by a charge of some kind other than "disruption of government process."

It's a BS charge, seemingly because he was annoying Price by his lawful persistence.