2917

You’re not wrong, but again, wrote that into a law. That’s the hard part. That’s why courts generally give wide leeway to Constitutional concepts like freedom of association, free speech, prior restraint, freedom of speech, and religious liberty.

Likewise, who is and is not a journalist should be interpreted as widely as possible so as not to ensnare people wrongly. It’d be far better to let Project Veritas skate than start allowing the DOJ to decide what journalism is and what it isn’t.

2918

Freedom of the press hasn’t been interpreted as a free pass to break laws. I don’t think there’s as much conflict here as one might think. If the DOJ is going after Veritas solely/primarily for the content of their opinions, that’s a problem and I’d agree that would be a problem if they were just any one else, too. On the other hand, if Veritas likely broke laws in their “journalistic” efforts, as they’ve done in the pass, than investigations are warranted.

Now, if random dude refused to respond to subpoenas and such under claims of protecting a source or such (things that normally you would not be able to do, absent being press), I think its fair to put the burden on the person/organization claiming press privileges to demonstrate that they follow journalistic norms. A court can decide that factual issue, like courts decide a ton of other factual issues.

2919

Do you think “journalistic norms” have changed in the last 10 years? I do. Laws don’t get updated frequently enough for us to rely on that definition to prevent the wrong people from being persecuted.

I guess my question is if you’d be comfortable with the DOJ doing the same thing to a Washington Post editor or someone who works for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

2920

I’m not sure what “laws” you’re referring to. Statutory law? Yes, that doesn’t change much, but these types of issues are generally resolved through case law, which can be more dynamic.

2921

Doing what, exactly? Investigating them? I don’t think being a WaPo editor means you’re immune to investigation. I haven’t really followed this story that closely, but I assume that the investigation is ongoing, so it is not surprising that the DOJ has not released a ton of info on what potential crimes they’re investigating. Is it possible that the DOJ is overstepping here? Sure. but I don’t think you get there simply because Veritas alleges that they’re journalists.

2922

Perhaps the ACLU might persuade you.

Project Veritas has engaged in disgraceful deceptions, and reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all. Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom. Unless the government had good reason to believe that Project Veritas employees were directly involved in the criminal theft of the diary, it should not have subjected them to invasive searches and seizures. We urge the court to appoint a special master to ensure that law enforcement officers review only those materials that were lawfully seized and that are directly relevant to a legitimate criminal investigation.

2923

I don’t disagree with any of that, particular this part. At this point in time, do we know that the DOJ doesn’t have good reasons? Both Veritas, and the ACLU should press them on that, and hopefully more details will be revealed. But the act of raiding Veritas (or WaPo for example) isn’t itself dispositive of overreach.

On the flip side, if they did have a reasonable basis to suspect a crime, press aren’t insulated from investigatory powers, including raids.

2924

Sure, you might be right. Perhaps the DOJ has evidence that PV were coconspirators in the theft. We’ll find out soon enough.

2925

But it’s not a “factual issue”. Indeed, the press hasn’t really historically followed what you might consider to be journalistic norms anyway. It’s difficult for me to come to any conclusion other than anyone who at least semi-regularly talks to sources / performs investigations and then reports what was said (in however biased a fashion) is “press” within the consitutional sense of the word and enjoys a certain (actually quite limited) level of constitutional protection.

Project Veritas can simultaneously be very bad and dishonest people and be “press” in the constitutional sense.

In particular the justification for raiding of the homes of multiple project veritas employees seems very thin. I’m less concerned about getting at confidential sources than I am about simple intimidation and harassment.

Im sure there are good reasons to investigate PV, but “they were in contact with some people who stole a diary, so we will search multiple homes” seems disproportionate on the face of it. OF course, there might be more going on of which we are unaware.

2926

This essay is a good intro to jurisprudence regarding freedom of the press.

It seems that generally the SC treats freedom of the press as just a special case of freedom of speech, i.e. the press is afforded special sensitivity in deciding freedom of speech cases because of its status in culture. As such, it seems that no press organization is entitled to special protection from government warrant. In fact, reporters have been legitimately jailed for refusing to reveal their sources.

2927

There’s a sort of analogous situation with religion. The law allows churches certain tax breaks. The IRS, therefore, has to have some way of deciding what is and what isn’t a church. Note, they do not decide what is or is not a religion, only whether something qualifies as a church. It’s a rather specific and sometimes hair-splitting line, but otherwise the government would be in a very untenable position of determining what a “real” religion is. Instead, the IRS has a bunch of very specific criteria about facilities, texts, officials, and what not that you need in order to qualify as a church and receive tax breaks. Which is why everyone from Wiccans to Catholics to Scientologists can get in under the big tent of tax loopholes.

2928

Which should stop. Want to pay for a huge BBB bill. Tax the fucking churches.

2929
2930

My 15 year old son (autistic) and his caregiver were at that parade. They didn’t see it happen but police had everyone leave immediately. Ugh.

2931

Did they catch the guy in the SUV?

2932

Amen (heh). But in the USA, religion gets a free pass on a whole bunch of stuff. Taxes, speech, adherence to laws, labor rules, you name it. As long as you can invoke some form of religious obligation or status that covers whatever it is you want to do (or don’t want to do, in the case of taxes), you can get away with it. I mean, someone who says they won’t obey a law about health care, work rules, vaccinations, whatever because of their religion? Sure, no problem. Same request/claim, but based on, say, a secular philosophical tradition? Nope, sorry.

You have to say you believe in supernatural boogiemen to get the feds to take you seriously. Seriously.

2933

Here’s video of the SUV plowing through the crowd. Be advised, this is rough to watch.

2934

Christ. That should be classified as a terrorist attack. Any parade in my town has cops at the front and back to control traffic - did they drive through the police to get through this?

2935

Yeah, they apparently drove through a police barricade.

I think they said that 11 adults and 12 kids were injured, and some have died.

2936

Ugh, that was horrible to see.