this is what i’m talking about…

breyer’s judgement is essentially claiming a journalist’s access to a crime/accident scene is based on the general public’s access to that same exact crime/accident scene. however, breyer’s argument contradicts itself because the general public is never allowed to cross the yellow tape at a crime scene even though some states do allow journalists to cross police tape. so based on breyer’s decision, journalists would never been able to cross police tape because the general public can’t.

what order are you referring to?

jones

“I’ve also seen a lot more non journalists on ride alongs then journalists so I don’t know where you got that information.”

Please provide specific examples.

Flickr, the key is “granted permission”, they have no constitutional right to go on ride alongs. I’ve also seen a lot more non journalists on ride alongs then journalists so I don’t know where you got that information.

Your ancestors tried to live on sophistry.

And so are our grey-hairs. I suppose our civilization will end for much similar reasons.

Good riddance.

P.S. The Thirty Theses
http://anthropik.com/thirty/

“The press has no First Amendment right to access accident or crime scenes if the general public is excluded.”

This statement is questionable and is simply a judge’s interpretation of Constitutional law.

In some states credentialed journalists are legally allowed to cross police tape, while the general public is never allowed, which contradicts Breyer’s interpretation of the law. So again, for Breyer to claim a journalist’s rights are determined by the general publics’ rights is open to debate.

Also, just read Carlos’ article above. Since he had a press pass he was able to photograph a spot fire. On the other hand, if he did not have a press pass and was just a member of the “general public” then he would not have gained access to that fire. This is another example which contradicts Breyer’s claim.

During wildfire season in CA, journalists move freely throughout the burn areas while the general public is forbidden to enter.

Finally, another example where the general public is rarely allowed is on a police ride along, however journalists are regularly granted permission to ride along with the police. Again, this contradicts Breyer’s interpretation of the law.

I still agree with the general outcome, to the best of my knowledge, the man was still breaking a law by exiting his vehicle and standing in the street on a highway, where such activity is illegal. In the same light, I wouldn’t pull off onto the shoulder of a highway and get out of my car to take a beautiful sunset picture, because again that would be in violation of several law, such as the ‘emergency stopping only’ and the ‘no pedestrians or discharge of passengers on highway laws.’

If he had been capable of getting pictures from some area where pedestrians are legally allowed, without leaving his car unoccupied in the highway, I would wholeheartedly support the photographer; however, given the circumstances, and my own personal understanding of the laws, at this point, I can not. I am open to the fact that I could be basing my opinions on incorrect information, or bad assumptions.

The press has no First Amendment right to access accident or crime scenes if the general public is excluded.