First Amendment: You’re Doing It Wrong

Yeah, no. This isn’t a George W. Bush rally; there are no “free speech zones.” If you want to escape reporters, it’s pretty simple — leave the public space.

And bullying that student reporter? Terrible idea — makes the assembled look like fascists on training wheels.

The movement says it is worried about “twisted insincere narratives,” and probably with good reason. But movements depend on media to get their message out. The media isn’t going to stop reporting just because the protesters have decided they’re done talking but would like to continue occupying public space, please. No, they’re going to report instead on the ensuing stupidity.

At this rate, ConcernedStudent1950 may set a record for fastest movement flame-out. Oh well. At least they got rid of the system president and school chancellor before cutting themselves off at the knees.

PS: I know conservatives are cynically using this incident to discredit the protesters. As C.P. Pierce said of the reporter in the video above: “Tim Tai was doing a job of work. He should have been allowed to do so without interference. He also should have been allowed to do so without being turned into a cudgel to be used against the people whose protest he was trying to cover.”

True. But all too predictable.

213 replies
  1. 1
    Gin & Tonic says:

    “Fellowship” is a verb now? I know one of the strengths of the English language is its flexibility, but, puh-leeze.

  2. 2
    trollhattan says:

    What’s the backstory? I have zero idea who these folks are or where.

    As to “You have no right to take my photo” I can assure the young padwan there is no right to privacy when in a public space in America–something I’ve had the opportunity to inform various rent-a-cops on occasion.

  3. 3
    Botsplainer says:

    Actually, I’d like to think that this would be a wake-up call to media organizations about how they’re perceived outside of their bubbles, but they simply won’t get it.

    I’m kind of coming to the belief that at least one national news reporter/pundit needs to be curb-stomped into drooling imbecility at least once a week as a lesson to the rest.

  4. 4
    trollhattan says:

    @Gin & Tonic:
    Still getting used to “network” as a verb.

  5. 5
    gwangung says:

    Not that I agree with the protestors, but there’s a fair amount of blame the media (particularly student media) has to shoulder in turning a blind eye (and sometimes open ridicule) to the conditions that generated this in the first place. Not a whole lot of trust to draw upon there, and this isn’t touching larger, Ferguson-related issues.

  6. 6
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @trollhattan: These are the anti-racism protesters at University of Missouri.

  7. 7

    What is going on? Can someone explain? I have no idea. Gwen Ifill was interviewing a student and a professor from the University yesterday on the Snooze Hour. So I guess some people are giving interviews.

  8. 8
    Mike J says:

    @Botsplainer:

    Actually, I’d like to think that this would be a wake-up call to media organizations about how they’re perceived outside of their bubbles, but they simply won’t get it.

    It would be interesting to see how it’s being taught at the j school.

  9. 9
    A guy says:

    Lol, concerned should be changed to whiney students 1950

  10. 10
    ruemara says:

    No offense, but yeah, you can say to a reporter “we don’t want you here and you’ll get nothing from us”. And even in a public space, you can deny a photographer access to you. I say this as a person who’s had to take pictures in a public space, deal with the public etc. Plus, Occupy got months of do nothing drumming circles, but this group is flaming out because they didn’t want to talk to the media except on their terms? Ok then. Once again, I do wonder if there’s a reason why minority led movements are judged a failure so quickly, even when they achieve a success.

  11. 11
    Tommy says:

    @Mike J: The University of MO used to have one of the best Journalism programs in the country. The guy yelling you can’t take my picture might want to go enroll in a class or two.

  12. 12
    Mike J says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    “Fellowship” is a verb now?

    You’ve never been to church in the south. I can assure you fellowship has been used as a verb for at least decades, if not centuries.

  13. 13
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Botsplainer: I’m sure the teaturds over at Free Republic would love that proposal — they hate the media too. I get that, I really do. The national political press sucks, blah blah blah. We talk about it all the time, and every group apparently feels just as victimized by crappy media as their opposites do. But the way to respond to it isn’t to circle the wagons and whine about the unfairness of it all. That’s self-defeating. You find the best person to articulate your message and get that person out there. If there are falsehoods being reported, you confront them.

  14. 14
    gwangung says:

    @Tommy: Clearly that reputation is in the past, given the inattention to the conditions that generated this situation.

  15. 15
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Mike J:

    You’ve never been to church in the south.

    This is true.

  16. 16
    Redshift says:

    Hey, Tommy – the site RSS feed seems to have stopped working some time in the past day or so. FYI.

  17. 17
    Betty Cracker says:

    @ruemara: You can personally refuse to talk to a reporter, but it’s dumb and self-defeating for a movement that relies on press coverage to muscle reporters out of their self-proclaimed “safe zone” in a public place. If “winning” is just getting rid of the president and chancellor and nothing more, then fine — they should feel free to do things that will turn the media megaphone against them now that they’ve achieved that objective. But if they’d like to accomplish more, what they did was a mistake.

  18. 18
    Keith G says:

    Quoting myself from a thread that died hours before I got to it….

    When the students set up a “press-free zone” in a public space, they were…well… they were not using their college education to it’s fullest potential.

    When the students used physical intimidation to deal with a reporter (fellow student) whose presence they objected to, they became Donald Trump.

    It was so very foolish.

  19. 19
    Tommy says:

    @Redshift: UGH. Seems nothing has gone out since 4:39 PM yesterday. Will look into it. Not to get in the weeds but I kept the plugin they were using here. I think there are better options, which might move to them.

  20. 20
    Cervantes says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    “Fellowship” is a verb now? I know one of the strengths of the English language is its flexibility, but, puh-leeze.

    Well, I have my peeves, too, but “fellowship” has been a verb since before Chaucer’s day.

  21. 21
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    “Fellowship” is a verb now? I know one of the strengths of the English language is its flexibility, but, puh-leeze.

    I’m not for a minute defending the atrocious sentence structure, primarily because it leads to the assumption that “fellowship” is indeed being used as a verb — but I imagine what was meant was more along the lines of “We ask for no media in the parameters so fellowship, sleep, and the place where people live can be protected from twisted insincere narratives.” Not a whit more graceful, but marginally clearer.

  22. 22
    MazeDancer says:

    First Amendment abuse was on display in Iowa on Friday night when there was a presidential forum by a sadly sick pastor who fired up the crowd by citing Biblical passages saying “Kill the Gays.” His rant included: Paul said it in the New Testament, it’s in Old Testament: “Kill the Gays”.

    And then he introduced Jindal, Huckabee, and Cruz. Who took the stage, individually, clearly smiling at 1700 people who think it is their Biblical duty to “Kill the Gays”. (But not right away, they’re going to give “America” a chance to repent. Also to send money, one assumes)

    How is it First Amendment approved to advocate murder? How is that legal? How can supporting killing any people not disqualify any candidate immediately? When did murder get to be a protected opinion? Will any reporter other than Rachel even ask Cruz about it?

    If you missed Rachel Maddow’s report on this horror, here’s the video, this “Kill the Gays” insanity starts around 6:00.

  23. 23
    Marc says:

    @Botsplainer:

    I’m kind of coming to the belief that at least one national news reporter/pundit needs to be curb-stomped into drooling imbecility at least once a week as a lesson to the rest.

    That’s your takeaway from a video of student activists harassing a student journalist because he’s trying to photograph their public assembly?

  24. 24
    MattF says:

    I agree that the Mizzou students need to take a deep breath and do better. It’s fair to note that there’s risks– I’m a little uneasy about saying ‘go ahead and jump’. But in fact, they’ve already done it– the issue is not so much whether to jump as how to land and where.

  25. 25
    trollhattan says:

    @ruemara:
    This might be helpful.

  26. 26
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: Don’t get me started in the misuse of “parameter” either.

  27. 27
    Keith G says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    …every group apparently feels just as victimized by crappy media as their opposites do. But the way to respond to it isn’t to circle the wagons and whine about the unfairness of it all. That’s self-defeating. You find the best person to articulate your message and get that person out there. If there are falsehoods being reported, you confront them.

    Exactly.

    There is nothing more important than the First Amendment, hence it’s ordination. Groups participating in the public space need to understand that part of their mission and its success depends on dealing with the press – good, bad, and ugly. There is just no excuse for behaving differently.

  28. 28
    benw says:

    That video made me think of Spinal Tap, of all things. Could the protesters have come off as any more stridently clueless and self-defeating in the final 30 seconds than the dudes in Spinal Tap? Why trundle that one poor photographer away and leave the video guy? And I *agree* with the anti-racism protesters and think that they *should* make an effort to limit harassment of individual students by people trying to discredit their protest. But the way they went about it in that video was dumb. But on the other hand, criticizing “process” is definitely a tool to marginalize protests like this one so that people don’t have to engage with the ugly racism that led to the protest.

    Props to the one dude who pulled his buddy back, though.

  29. 29
    Botsplainer says:

    @Marc:

    That’s your takeaway from a video of student activists harassing a student journalist because he’s trying to photograph their public assembly?

    It is a reflection of the total absence of trust, which the news organizations have recklessly squandered.

  30. 30

    @ruemara:

    I’m kind of two minds. I get what Betty is saying, but given how anti-racism protestors have been harassed and threatened by “journalists” like Chuck Johnston, I’m not surprised that they’re wary of them.

    Also, having been a college journalist myself, perhaps making contact with a few protesters first and then going with them to the protest would have been a better strategy. “Objectivity” doesn’t mean you have to stay aloof from the people in the story. You can get a whole lot more done by getting them to trust you first.

  31. 31
    gwangung says:

    @Botsplainer: Ironically, isn’t the fact that the local news groups that ignored these conditions part of the problem? And that they have to do something to re-engender that trust?

  32. 32
    Tommy says:

    @MazeDancer: I really wish you didn’t post that video and two I didn’t watch it. My gosh the sheer hate. Makes me kind of happy that the roll of the genetic dice were such I am straight. Sure progress is being made but the hate, I am not adult enough to deal with it.

  33. 33
    Keith G says:

    @MazeDancer:

    How is it First Amendment approved to advocate murder? How is that legal? How can supporting killing any people not disqualify any candidate immediately? When did murder get to be a protected opinion? Will any reporter other than Rachel even ask Cruz about it?

    If the speech is seen as a direct call to action (inciting violence) it can be limited. That said, political speech is give very wide boundaries.

    On the plus side, to pervert a Biblical phrase, “By their words you will know the ass holes.” Let them make and carry those signs. That will enforce their voter ceiling in a way a NYT editorial never could.

  34. 34
    trollhattan says:

    @Gin & Tonic:
    I have a lovely fence around part of my home’s parameter. It’s great, +/- 1.5.

  35. 35
    Goblue72 says:

    Blaming the media and working the refs has worked quite well for the right wing. They don’t lack for media coverage. The news these days are jackals in search of eyeballs. Beat them with a stick and they’ll come back for more.

    Maybe these kids know more than the Goo-Goos of BJ?

  36. 36
    gussie says:

    Young people are learning how to use power. There’s some stumbling going on, but hey, power isn’t polite–or even necessarily smart.

  37. 37
    Tommy says:

    @Botsplainer: That is totally accurate IMHO. I will not support what they did but I try to understand their thinking. This is a generation that gets their news from the Daily Show. I have a MA in Journalism, but then again when I got it computers were kind of a “new” thing. We didn’t have the Internet. The college aged kids I can’t really relate to. They experience the world in a way I am not familiar with. How they consume media and news is foreign to me. They have little if no trust of media. Or MSM in general.

  38. 38
    gwangung says:

    @Goblue72:

    Blaming the media and working the refs has worked quite well for the right wing.

    Huh. Interesting point.

  39. 39
    Peale says:

    @MazeDancer: It isn’t really murder. They intend to have the government repent and do the deed for them and as we know it isn’t murder when the state rounds up groups of people for repentance, re-education and extermination.

  40. 40
    JPL says:

    I’m celebrating the day by sitting outside. Sunshine has been in short supply in the Atlanta area recently.

  41. 41
    ruemara says:

    @Betty Cracker: As I’ve said, it is their choice who to speak to. And it’s hardly correct to say that they aren’t doing interviews, as they have. We’re not going to agree on this point, so I’ll leave it there.

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): I agree on both points. I get what Betty and a whole bunch of others are saying, I disagree on their judgment and your point is pretty much what protesters and supporters are saying.

    @trollhattan: yeah, thanks. But there’s a line between legal and what works when dealing with the public. I already knew the law, having done journalistic & event work as well as having the benefit of an attorney to ask questions of. However, especially as a black woman working the public sphere with a white majority population, I also had to be aware of the comfort levels of people in being photographed as well as interviewed. Making friends first has helped more than yelling first amendment and you’re in public with no rights to privacy at this event. YMMV.

  42. 42
    MazeDancer says:

    @Keith G:

    If the speech is seen as a direct call to action (inciting violence) it can be limited. That said, political speech is give very wide boundaries.

    May be why pastor said at end “Wait. Don’t do it. Let them repent”.

  43. 43
    trollhattan says:

    @Botsplainer:
    By the same token looting that takes place coincident with legitimate protest squanders the protesters’ right to a voice?

    More generally what’s the purpose of a protest without media to disseminate it? Doesn’t that result in talking to oneself?

  44. 44
    kc says:

    Luv the spectacle of good white allies shoving an Asian-American photographer around, for justice.

  45. 45
    Mike J says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    You can get a whole lot more done by getting them to trust you first.

    And when your story doesn’t follow their talking points exactly, they’ll say you used them by falsely ingratiating yourself into their group. I don’t think reaction would be unique to this group. Teabaggers and occupiers would both react the same way.

  46. 46
    srv says:

    Trump should draft all these special snowflakes and send them over to Syria.

    Where’s Mayor Daley’s goons when there are so many hippies to punch.

  47. 47
    Tommy says:

    @ruemara: Your last point about the pics is key. They are saying stupid shit. Hard to take somebody as serious when they do this. In a public space I can take a pic of you and publish it. Now if I want to take a pic and sell it, like as a stock image, well I need your approval. Those are two different things and they got a library, the Internet, and they shouldn’t say stupid shit. Hurts their cause.

  48. 48
    Calouste says:

    There is nothing more important than the First Amendment, hence it’s ordination.

    You mean it was so important that the framers of the American constitution couldn’t be bothered to actually include it in the first place?

  49. 49
    MattF says:

    @srv: Ah, topic drift.

  50. 50

    @Peale:

    That’s true — the people at Nuremberg were charged with war crimes and genocide, but not “murder.”

    Let’s see if I can type the whole Eddie Izzard bit without my thumbs giving out:

    Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can’t even deal with that. We think if somebody kills someone, that’s murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that’s what they do. Twenty people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can’t deal with it, you know? Someone’s killed 100,000 people, we’re almost, “Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can’t even get down the gin!”

  51. 51
    Mike J says:

    Didja see what the college republicans had to say on twitter?

  52. 52
    catbirdman says:

    @Goblue72: Great point.

  53. 53
    Alex says:

    Reasons why this is a bad move by the protesters–

    1. Half the reason for a protest is drawing media attention to your cause. Without media attention, it’s easy for people in charge to ignore the protesters. Most of the time, protesters are powerless to cause change on their own — which is why they are protesting, to convince others that their cause is significant.

    2. The media loves it when they become a story. It’s easier to report the story, easy to get quotes, easy to get interviews. It also becomes something they care greatly about, which is media access. This means that preventing media from reporting on an event can make the prevention a bigger story than the event.

    I can understand the desire to block out the media. But a protest should be directing the media to a spokesperson or someone who will do interviews and handle the media. Almost everyone who is a newsmaker uses that when things get complicated or contentious. And it works well because the media then can’t complain about access without coming off as whiny.

  54. 54
    ruemara says:

    @Mike J: I think the news article tweet that was deleted was part of the unfriendly attitude towards the student journalists. Hard to tell who might at least be fair when anyone can claim journalism.

  55. 55
    kc says:

    @Botsplainer:

    You seem kinda violent.

  56. 56
    Cervantes says:

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    primarily because it leads to the assumption that “fellowship” is indeed being used as a verb

    I think they meant to use it as a verb.

  57. 57
    kc says:

    Trying to imagine our reaction if some university’s College Republicans occupied a public quad to protest, say, Obamacare, and started shoving photographers around.

  58. 58
    MazeDancer says:

    Can understand how kids wanting to change the world want to change everything, right away. Especially if they’ve felt powerless. And now they feel they are quite powerful, at least for a moment. So wanting to set boundaries and not have reporters around when they feel they are in “private” is understandable.

    But it’s not realistic.

    They’re in public space. And they want it both ways. Social media and “you are there” reporting is great when they’re protesting, but having pictures of people one might have supported after the battle is won is not okay? Media coverage lines are almost impossible to draw. And being in public is not a realistic way to draw them. But they’re kids changing the world. Just like Occupy. They want new ways. And they want to be able to call the shots. Literally.

    Thousands of people not in MO, who waged Social Protest with them, might also want nice pictures of people hugging. Or just a feeling of being on site. And fighting over another kid trying to do his job is not helping people understand all the ways racism existed on the campus, which is not widely known.

    They’re stepping on their most important message in a moment when spokespeople could be driving home their valid points. But Occupy didn’t like it when people, no matter how experienced, suggested ways to widen their impact and reach either.

    The media is seizing on the “press” issue and burying the lede of: It was a long period of racism going unchecked that the football players were protesting. (ETA: Like, now I see, Alex said above)

    OTOH, that professor was extremely ill-advised. She teaches media studies. How to treat the “press”? Yell at them and call in muscle? To quote Betty: “Yeah, no”

  59. 59
    MomSense says:

    I think it’s pretty easy for people like me who are not part of the movement and haven’t been living the racism at MU to look at one video of an interaction and judge. It’s really not fair for me to do this as I really don’t know enough about the relationship between the protesters, media, and that media group specifically. This movement has been incredibly successful and I am hoping that they will take this latest win and continue to organize for important goals.

    Have the protesters explained their reasoning for this yet? I’ll wait to hear what they have to say.

  60. 60
    Tommy says:

    @Mike J: I will let you tell me :).

    Missouri was my “safety” grad school. I’ve said this before and will say it again. Missouri is trying hard to be more crazy than Kansas. Columbia and the University of Missouri is an island of blue in a sea of red. The topic these students are talking about should be a slam dunk. But they are messing it up to a point a liberal site like this is taking issue with them.

  61. 61
    Punchy says:

    @Botsplainer: Okay then.

  62. 62

    Also, it’s not part of the First Amendment that the press can force people to talk to them, even at a public protest. They can cover it, but there’s no law saying the protesters have to talk to journalists or let them take their pictures. Is it okay for police officers to take pictures of the protesters because they’re in a public place? If not, why is it okay for journalists to do it if the subject says no?

  63. 63
    Cervantes says:

    @Calouste:

    You mean [the First Amendment] was so important that the framers of the American constitution couldn’t be bothered to actually include it in the first place?

    That’s not exactly what happened. The framers did not have one unified position on the question.

  64. 64

    @kc:

    I don’t agree with the shoving. At all. But if someone doesn’t want their picture taken, even in a public place, and you shove a camera in their face anyway, that’s not cool.

  65. 65
    Tommy says:

    @MomSense: I live just a few miles from Missouri. Feels like I live in the state since all my media comes from St. Louis. I don’t know a polite way to even say it but it is a racist state. I’ve lived in the deep south and the stereotype is this or that, it is worse in Missouri. I get the students are pissed off. Mad.

  66. 66
    Culture of Truth says:

    If you want be alone to sleep and talk in private, a public lawn in the middle of a protest you invited the media to seems like odd place to do it. And calling for muscle to force a journalist to stop looking at the public protest is definitely not helpful.

  67. 67
    SenyoDave says:

    Hard to see how anyone could defend the actions in the video. They were wrong, totally wrong, and the only people trying to escalate it were some of the students and the two women who are on the university payroll (they should be immediately apologizing since 1. they are not students and should know better and 2. the two people they were trying to get removed, and in Ms. Click’s case making veiled threats to, help to pay their salaries). You can argue forever about how much they mistrust the media, but it doesn’t matter. Once you have a protest in a truly public space, DEAL with it.

  68. 68

    @Mike J:

    Welcome to journalism. If you can’t take the fact that people will hate the way you write about them, then you need to get out of that business. That’s why I’m not in journalism anymore, and I was only doing entertainment, not breaking news.

  69. 69
    Culture of Truth says:

    When Trump had Jorge Ramos tossed out of his press conference, Ramos said he he had a right to be there. But that was at least on private property.

  70. 70
    Woodrowfan says:

    what’s worse is that some of the professors with the students teach journalism!

  71. 71
    Alex says:

    And today, the protesters are now interacting with the media. They have taken down their boycott media signs and posted PSAs about how they are welcoming them.

  72. 72
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    I don’t agree with the shoving. At all.

    Me, neither.

    But if someone doesn’t want their picture taken, even in a public place, and you shove a camera in their face anyway, that’s not cool.

    What if the cameras are concealed, or operated by government, or both?

  73. 73
    kc says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    Also, it’s not part of the First Amendment that the press can force people to talk to them, even at a public protest. They can cover it, but there’s no law saying the protesters have to talk to journalists

    Pretty sure no one has stated there’s a law that requires protesters to talk to journalists.

  74. 74
    Cervantes says:

    @Botsplainer:

    Actually, I’d like to think that this would be a wake-up call to media organizations about how they’re perceived outside of their bubbles, but they simply won’t get it.

    Zero probability.

    I’m kind of coming to the belief that at least one national news reporter/pundit needs to be curb-stomped into drooling imbecility at least once a week as a lesson to the rest.

    Into drooling imbecility?

  75. 75
    MazeDancer says:

    Chris Hayes just retweeted this. Speaks to youthful enthusiasm stepping on their own promo moment:

    collier meyerson ‏@collier 53m53 minutes ago

    Spoke to one of the “original 11” #ConceredStudent1950 about the change of heart w/ press: “we’re students, we’re learning as we go along”

  76. 76
    Pogonip says:

    @Gin & Tonic: American Protestants have long used “fellowship” as a verb.

  77. 77
    Tommy says:

    @Woodrowfan: I have a degree in Journalism. I am pretty sure many of my professors were not liberal. Well I don’t know what they were. They practiced what they preached. You report the facts. Facts if you do your background research are not usually that up for debate.

  78. 78
    PhoenixRising says:

    Been there, and…no.

    They’re not demanding to control media coverage, at least not with the sign. It’s a polite request that the space in which they are presently living–to achieve a political end—be treated as sanctuary, vs public space in which political speech is occurring.

    You can dispute whether an occupation protest that goes on 24/7 is only happening in public space. Where that ends you is: Does CNN have a right to stick a camera inside a tent and film me sleeping, if the tent is part of a speech action? Maybe. But it’s not wrong to ask them not to. And we weren’t wrong to pitch the tent:

    http://www.thecampanil.com/mills-strike-overview/

  79. 79
    Woodrow/asim says:

    ETA: Screw it. Not in the mindset for the fight my comment would engender.

    Carry on, please.

  80. 80

    @kc:

    You mean other than Betty putting the First Amendment in the headline and talking about how this is akin to a “free speech zone” in her post?

  81. 81
    kc says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    I don’t agree with the shoving. At all. But if someone doesn’t want their picture taken, even in a public place, and you shove a camera in their face anyway, that’s not cool.

    Yeah, I really don’t like it either when journalists get super-aggressive and shove cameras (or mics) in ppl’s faces. But this guy wasn’t doing that. He was trying to photograph a public, newsworthy event that was taking place on public property.

  82. 82
    kc says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    You mean other than Betty putting the First Amendment in the headline and talking about how this is akin to a “free speech zone” in her post?

    You’re gonna have to explain to me how that equates to Betty asserting that there’s a law that protesters must speak to journalists. Because I don’t see it.

  83. 83
    PJ says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): you might want to read up on the first amendment and public space – anything in public space can be recorded/captured/written about. There is no expectation of privacy.
    You will also note that the photographer did not “get up in someone’s face” but rather was consistently pushed back by the protestors who did not want him photographing anything.

  84. 84
    BGinCHI says:

    For those interested, which is likely everyone here, epic takedown of Freddie deBoer at LGM, courtesy of Scott Lemieux.

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblo.....republican

  85. 85
  86. 86
    daveNYC says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Protesters in a public space don’t have to let photographers take their photo in the sense that they don’t have to pose and say cheese, but they can’t stop someone from taking photos. You’re in public for fuck’s sake. Someone wants to take a photo of you, they can. You don’t want photos, you should hold your protest in your living room. You really want to go down the path of restricting the first amendment because the people on the other side of the lens don’t like it?

    Best part of this is that the protesters came off not just as assholes, but as incompetent ones since that video guy just stood there and let the wall pass around him. Way to advance the cause morans!

    And there needs to be some discipline handed down to the university employees who were supporting this.

    God damn that video pissed me off.

  87. 87
  88. 88
    piratedan7 says:

    my apologies for being OT….

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mst3k/bringbackmst3k

    One of my favorite ways to past the time was watching MST3K and the fact that Hodgson is attempting to revive it may appeal to many a BJ commenter

  89. 89

    @Cervantes:

    Perhaps you can read my comment at 1:10 pm to get a hint about my opinion of police photography. Just a thought.

    Surveillance cameras are different, because they’re usually not there for the specific purpose of monitoring free speech. If you can find a case where surveillance cameras were installed specifically to take pictures of protesters exercising free speech, then I would also say that that’s wrong. I

  90. 90
    Tommy says:

    @PJ: Reporters shouldn’t be assholes. Hope that is a given. But I have every right to take a picture of somebody in public or quiz them if I want. I’d suggest if people think I am wrong they pick up The First Amendment and the Fourth Estate: The Law of Mass Media. The case law on this is crystal clear.

  91. 91
    JPL says:

    According to Mediaite
    President Barack Obama became the first president photographed for the cover of an LGBT publication after being named OUT magazine’s 2015 “Ally of the Year.”
    There’s a nice picture also. I’m afraid to link to it since sometimes that can cause you to go into moderation.

  92. 92

    @kc:

    I can’t see the video, but if what happened is that he was taking pictures from outside the protest zone and he got rushed, then that’s not cool. If he walked into the middle of the protest and started snapping pictures, that may not have been the most advisable way to do it.

  93. 93
    dmsilev says:

    Off-topic, the GOP has apparently been taken over by a bunch of ten-year-olds:

    Last night, Ted Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler shared an image on Twitter showing the “password every member of the media will have to type to get Wi-Fi access” at tonight’s Republican candidate debate in Milwaukee. That password? “StopHillary.” The thinking here seems be that this will function as a clove of garlic to the vampiric mass media, all of whom are registered Democrats intent on sucking the life out of the Grand Old Party’s slate.

  94. 94
    goblue72 says:

    On one hand, we have a group of (mostly) young people who have successfully forced the President of a large public research university to resign – not because he himself was racist, but because he wasn’t doing enough about the racist crap happening while on his watch and folks are tired of taking “no” for an answer. On the other, a (mostly) oldpeopletariat oldsplaining to the youngsters that they are doing it all wrong.

    I’m going with the ones with actual power who just unseated a university President – and who managed to convince the football team of a Division I school to go on strike in racial solidarity. The kids are all-right.

  95. 95
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Pogonip: none of the ones I know. And my mother is a retired pastor.

  96. 96
    goblue72 says:

    @Tommy: You certainly do. And they have the right to scream F.U. to your face repeatedly and demand to tell them if you’ve stopped having sex with goats.

  97. 97
    Calouste says:

    @Cervantes: Distinction without a difference.

  98. 98
    Princess says:

    This activist group on the U Missouri campus that is supposed to be so “dumb” and so lousy at strategy and getting their message out while the BJ pundits criticize their tactics has just won a victory every single other grassroots organization would give its eye teeth for, So maybe they aren’t so dumb.

    Anyway, a friend just posted that they are willing to talk to the media now so tempest over.

  99. 99
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @SenyoDave: You say that like there’s something wrong with veiled threats. We all know that’s not the case. She says, bravely, without use of a proxy.

  100. 100
    Tommy says:

    @goblue72: Well said. I can take apart this or that, but at the core you are correct. We IMHO shouldn’t forget the story here.

  101. 101
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Alex: Good for them. They are learning.

  102. 102
    srv says:

    makes the assembled look like fascists on training wheels.

    And yet you people mocked Jonah Goldberg when he presciently tried to warn you.

  103. 103
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym says:

    @goblue72: Well, hey, it’s nice to know that having power makes your behavior okay.

  104. 104
    Tommy says:

    @goblue72: Of course they do. And honestly I wish they did this more. Reporters IMHO should not be given a free ride. They should be pushed.

  105. 105
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    Surveillance cameras are different, because they’re usually not there for the specific purpose of monitoring free speech. If you can find a case where surveillance cameras were installed specifically to take pictures of protesters exercising free speech, then I would also say that that’s wrong.

    What you said earlier (what I asked about) did not mention free speech:

    But if someone doesn’t want their picture taken, even in a public place, and you shove a camera in their face anyway, that’s not cool.

    Suppose you’re on a public bus, or on a public beach, not engaged in any overt protest, and someone insists on taking your photo, “that’s not cool” — right?

    Maybe you were talking about protestors only? In that case, how about someone wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt on that public bus?

    All I want to know is whether I am reading you correctly.

  106. 106
    Joel says:

    At this rate, ConcernedStudent1950 may set a record for fastest movement flame-out. Oh well. At least they got rid of the system president and school chancellor before cutting themselves off at the knees.

    It’s true that you’re only as good as your weakest link, but the memorable outcome of this movement is getting an SEC football team — one that plays in the conference that is the premiere moneymaker in college sports, and one that plays most of its games in the heart of the Old Confederacy — to take an actual stand against racism. I would say that’s a pretty significant outcome.

  107. 107
  108. 108
    Joel says:

    @ruemara: I had the same inkling.

  109. 109
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym says:

    @gwangung: Not really. That was a major part of the justification goblue72 used.

    I’m going with the ones with actual power who just unseated a university President . . .

  110. 110
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Joel: It is a significant success, which is why it’s important not to completely fuck up the narrative — because there’s a lot more to be done. But the good news is that the group has now taken down the “no media” signs and started using the media to get their message out again, at least according to several commenters above. I hope that’s true and that the media will focus on what they say instead of the “students chase media out” bit.

  111. 111

    @PJ:

    So if I’m in public and notice someone with a camera, I’m not allowed to turn my back to them or hide my face because otherwise I’m violating their free speech right to take my picture in a public place?

    Courts in some jurisdictions have found that taking upskirt photos of unsuspecting women on the bus or subway is not illegal, because you’re in a public place and therefore have no expectation of privacy. If those women didn’t want to have photos taken under their skirts, they should have worn pants.

    Like all rights, there are limits to the First Amendment, which is why libel and slander laws can co-exist with it.

  112. 112
    Joel says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym: In the context that he was using it:

    1) Some members of a student movement (that has accomplished some real, tangible results to the betterment of society) who did and said some ridiculous shit and have been rightly mocked for it.

    and

    2) Many members of the internet peanut gallery that says and does ridiculous shit all the fucking time and rarely takes accountability for that.

  113. 113
    p.a. says:

    When photographic technology moved beyond the ‘stay motionless for 3 minutes’ stage I believe there were court cases, maybe up to SCOTUS, defining what is and isn’t legal. Basically you can’t stand outside someone’s home and photo through the window. Given paparazzi actions, I guess if you’re outside on your property you’re fair game.

    I almost always support ‘punching up’ not ‘punching down’ movements, but I’m uncomfortable with any movement that feels it has a right not to be questioned, analyzed, ‘deconstructed’ as to aims, actions (i.e. do the actions help or hinder attaining the aims), treatment of dissenters within the movement etc. WATBism is not, sadly, found only on the right of the political spectrum.

    I do understand that the questioners, analyzers, etc. are often tools of the existing power structure and are just seeking to collapse social justice movements, so it’s complicated.

    To quote a local sports talk host “I… I don’t know Mike. I don’t know.”

  114. 114
    Tommy says:

    @Cervantes:

    Suppose you’re on a public bus, or on a public beach, not engaged in any overt protest, and someone insists on taking your photo, “that’s not cool” — right?

    It isn’t cool but legal depending on how you use said image. I am something of a photo bug. I try very hard when taking pics not to be rude. The line between being a dick and not being a dick is usually pretty clear to me.

  115. 115
    DTTM says:

    An overheated standoff which seems to have been dealt with today…young people learning as they go along. Sad that the incident invites scorn–some deserved, no doubt–and obscures real issues which deserve serious discussion. Bummer when the Limbaugh types are given such easy targets to mock “libtards”, hence the serious part gets lost, and it’s everyone back to their corners of mutual disdain.

  116. 116
    LWA says:

    I would like to think of this as a misstep in a larger movement, not a fatal error.
    And the best way for us to handle it is not to circle the wagons, but point it out and marginalize the ones who are over the line.
    The larger narrative of racism and oppression is the goal, even if sometimes people on our side do stupid stuff.

  117. 117
    goblue72 says:

    @Tommy: Given the evisceration of the revenue streams for traditional media, I can see why journalists may be forced to emulate the paparazzi. I think this is just the direction things are going in – a supine press in some quarters where it involves reporting on the ownership class that cuts their paychecks, and a paparazzi-like chase of controversy for everything else in the mad quest for eyeball time.

  118. 118
    Cervantes says:

    @Tommy:

    The line between being a dick and not being a dick is usually pretty clear to me.

    That’s probably what everyone thinks (subjectively) about their own actions. It’s the actions of others that (objectively) cross the line.

  119. 119
    LWA says:

    @Joel:
    That’s a good point- any media that features Bobo, Judith Miller, and David Gregory shouldn’t complain about stupid stuff like “media safe zones”.

  120. 120
    gwangung says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym: Again, straw man. This action is not accepted unreservedly, at least by the general discussion. Moreover, isolating this from possible context (is this living area, is this a staging area) is not a useful way to approach it.

  121. 121
    trollhattan says:

    @Alex: @MazeDancer:
    Good. It shows they’re smart young adults learning tough lessons on the go and adjusting to life in the real world. I wasn’t as smrt at twenty as I thought, either. (Probably still the case.)

  122. 122

    @Cervantes:

    I think that someone who insists on their “right” to take someone’s picture in a public place even if that person says “no” is an asshole. It is often legal to be an asshole.

    As I mentioned in a reply to someone else, in some places it’s perfectly legal for you to put a camera under a woman’s skirt and take a picture, because you’re all in a public place. Do we need to defend that behavior on First Amendment grounds?

    I think the behavior of the students in the video was ill-advised, and since they’ve changed their stance, they seem to agree.

  123. 123
    goblue72 says:

    @Betty Cracker: And the oldsplaining from our resident MAWW continues…

  124. 124
    Joel says:

    @LWA: Succinctly stated.

  125. 125
    Tommy says:

    @Cervantes: Yeah I guess that is true. I tend to take pics of nature and not people. If I was taking a picture of people and somebody objected, I’d be like sorry, my bad, I didn’t mean any offense.

    But as a reporter well things are kind of different. Sure that mother doesn’t want pics taken of her daughter’s body in a car crash. But it is news. Twisted as it might be, but news.

  126. 126
    trollhattan says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):
    One could plow into the murky distinction between a public figure and a private citizen by going back to Ron Galella and the “golden” age of the celebrity-stalker paparazzi. Believe the courts have held that public figures can’t control the commercial use of their images but private citizens can; hence the signed model release. But aside from the commercial use distinction I don’t believe the right not to be photographed differs between the two groups.

  127. 127
    daveNYC says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    So if I’m in public and notice someone with a camera, I’m not allowed to turn my back to them or hide my face because otherwise I’m violating their free speech right to take my picture in a public place?

    Going straight to the reductio ad absurdum? Obviously there’s nothing stopping you from covering your face or otherwise moving away from the camera. You can also put up your hand to block the camera.

    What these peeps were doing, and remember this is a major protest on university grounds, a newsworthy event, unlike some rando’s daily commute, was getting a wall of people and walking them forward, bumping the photographer so that he either had to back up or get run over. And at the end, the other older lady called for people to come over and expel the video guy from their area.

  128. 128
    Tommy says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): I might have that legal right but totally agree if you ask me not to and I still do I am a dick.

    As I mentioned in a reply to someone else, in some places it’s perfectly legal for you to put a camera under a woman’s skirt and take a picture, because you’re all in a public place. Do we need to defend that behavior on First Amendment grounds?

    I wasn’t aware this was legal anywhere. I am with you 100% here. Heck I think they should be on sex offenders lists and I don’t say that lightly.

  129. 129
    p.a. says:

    @Tommy: Leicas and other brands are famous for quiet shutters so one can photograph people without ‘disturbing’ (i.e. asking permission to photograph) them.

  130. 130
    MomSense says:

    This makes zero sense. The reporter who also identified as a student says in the video that he doesn’t want to interview anyone, just take a picture. I don’t understand why he can’t take a photo from a few steps back. He walks right up to them and the students asked him to back up. He has a long lens. I’m not understanding why he can’t take photos unless he is right up next to them.

  131. 131
    Calouste says:

    In case there was any doubt that the Republicans haven’t mentally advanced beyond junior high:

    Media must use “StopHillary” Wi-Fi password at tonight’s Republican debate

  132. 132
    Tommy says:

    @MomSense: I kind of get what you are saying but I think shortsighted. So the person can take a pic from a distance, but they can’t walk into a group in a public space? So as a liberal I can’t walk into a tea party gathering in a public place and ask questions and take pics just because I have multiple lenses?

  133. 133
    goblue72 says:

    @Tommy: Let’s be clear here – the “news” that makes up the overwhelming bulk of “news” in 21st century America – outside of the reporting on “what’s the weather like”, or “what’s the traffic like” or “who won sportsball last night” – is primarily the trading in tabloid sensationalism of human misery, embarrassment, and scandal. All for the purpose of commanding viewer eyeballs for the day in order to sell advertising. Whatever existed in the time of Ed Murrow is long since past. The commercialization of the “news” is complete – and what is CHOSEN by media organizations to be “the news” is chosen for its bread-and-circus value more than anything.

    So, yeah, an urge to punch journalists in the face is increasingly understandable. I’m not advocating for it – but I sure can understand it.

  134. 134
    Betty Cracker says:

    @goblue72: Says the brave keyboard kookmando.

  135. 135
    PJ says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): that’s not what I wrote, and you know it. There’s a difference between what’s legal and what’s assholish or creepy, and between what’s assholish and what’s legitimate news-gathering. You seem to
    think that if any group in public (e.g. the police) objects to having their photo taken, that should be the end of the story. (BTW, libel and slander have to do with circulating defamatory material, and truth is an absolute defense.)

  136. 136
    MomSense says:

    It also sounds like the protesters are saying that other reporters are taking photos, documenting the action, without being disrespectful.

  137. 137
    Tommy says:

    @goblue72: Oh you are preaching to the choir here. Best thing I ever did was get rid of cable. Work out of my house and I used to have MSNBC on 10+ hours a day. Without cable I don’t know the hot blond white lady that goes missing, the random this or that, and I feel better for it.

  138. 138
    Culture of Truth says:

    Courts in some jurisdictions have found that taking upskirt photos of unsuspecting women on the bus or subway is not illegal, because you’re in a public place and therefore have no expectation of privacy. If those women didn’t want to have photos taken under their skirts, they should have worn pants.

    That’s not quite correct. Courts have dismissed charges because there was no prior law against it. Once a state legislature passes such a law, it doesn’t violate the first amendment, and the charges can be upheld, regardless of any expectation of privacy.

  139. 139
    BobS says:

    @goblue72: Then you must have gotten a real rush watching the multiple acts of assault and battery on the guy with the camera.

  140. 140
    kindness says:

    Well the discussion here is about the same as the discussion regarding this happening over at the GOS. Actually I was surprised so many at GOS thought the students were being ignorant of the inevitable backlash. Seems as if Balloon-Juice & DKos are becoming one over time. I remember when mocking GOS was a regular feature here.

    You don’t need it as it’s all been said before but….The kids have a right to protest. The kids don’t have a right to restrict public spaces. Asking for privacy is fine. Demanding it (in a public) space is gonna feed the trolls you are trying to defeat. Why the kids couldn’t figure that out I can’t say.

  141. 141
    Tommy says:

    @MomSense: You threw out libel and slander in another comment. You realize there is a huge difference between the two words and “public” is at the core of it.

  142. 142
    Lamh36 says:

    sorry Betty but it’s not just conservatives using. this ONE incident to malign these kids.

    it’s just as many “fair and balanced” folks on “our side too”. where the coverage goes from the real change theses kids cause to using one misstep to get on a high horse about these meddlesome kids, who wouldn’t have “gotten anything changed if not for the media shining a light” on them…ya know the same media that hasn’t been saying shit as all the stuff happening at Mizzou was going on all these time?

    but whatever…it’s another example the young people, just seem not to be able to make one misstep nowadays without having it color their whole performance.

    this distraction and how it’s taken over the story is actually more a sad reflection of the media than these kids one misstep.

    but hey the movement deserves what it gets am I right… growing pains be damned…I mean it’s not like the youth groups of the CRM were absolutely perfect in handing media they first started…

  143. 143
    Culture of Truth says:

    I don’t see this as just the old lecturing the young, because to me the worst actor here is the college professor calling for muscle. She’s not helping the students’ cause at all.

  144. 144

    @PJ:

    Actually, you have it backwards — I’m saying that the police should not be taking pictures of protesters, even if those protesters are in public. Citizens taking photos of police performing their duties is a completely different situation, because police don’t have First Amendment rights while they’re doing their jobs in a public space.

    The argument from some people seems to be that if a journalist or private citizen wants to take your photo in a public place, you have to let them because First Amendment. I’m pointing out that it may be legal, but don’t be surprised if people get pissed off if you insist on taking their picture after they’ve said, “No, don’t do that.”

  145. 145
    MomSense says:

    @Tommy:

    Libel and slander?

    I didn’t use those words. I think it is pretty tough to tell what is happening based only on this video.

  146. 146
    goblue72 says:

    @Betty Cracker: Once a MAWW, always a MAWW.

  147. 147
    goblue72 says:

    @Culture of Truth: So the old lecturing the old?

  148. 148

    @Tommy:

    I think I’m the one who brought up libel and slander, actually.

  149. 149
    Paul in KY says:

    @MazeDancer: I would think ‘terroristic threatening’ would be appropriate.

  150. 150
    Tommy says:

    @MomSense: Whoops my total bad. “Mnemosyne (iPhone)” did. Again my bad.

  151. 151
    Culture of Truth says:

    @goblue72: I prefer ‘not-young’

  152. 152
    MomSense says:

    The video begins after the interaction has already begun. The first thing you hear is a tall student who seems to be one of the protesters saying to the reporter “yes but you cannot push them [student protesters] to move closer.

  153. 153
    goblue72 says:

    @Lamh36: Its par for the course here. Old white people nitpicking on the youngsters (who demographically are a lot less pale) and it gets 100 comments.

    TWiB pointing out how great what these kids accomplished is – less than a dozen comments.

  154. 154
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Lamh36: The protesters get it now:

    cs_psa

    Good for them.

  155. 155

    @Lamh36:

    It probably was not the best strategy on their part, but I don’t really expect people in their early 20s to always act rational and mature, especially when everyone is worked up. But since they already seem to have realized it wasn’t a great idea and changed their tactics, I don’t see why that mistake needs to be harped on anymore.

  156. 156
    MomSense says:

    @Lamh36:

    Near the end of the video one of the students warns another that …”I know but they’ll change the story on you” Yup.

  157. 157
    Paul in KY says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Because they are in public & the photographer does not have to obey their wish (legally).

  158. 158
    Tommy says:

    @goblue72: Not everybody :). I think I have said more than once or twice here what these kids did is pretty amazing. I am getting older. Nothing close to a teen. I will pat myself on my back and say I am known as the “cool uncle.” I am the guy playing the game they are playing on their phone. Maybe listening to their music.

  159. 159
    BobS says:

    @goblue72: We must have watched different videos. In the one I watched the photographer appeared to be of Asian descent while most of the people assaulting him were white — including the middle-aged woman calling for “muscle”.

  160. 160
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @goblue72: Maybe a poster who interacts with the commenters gets more comments than one who doesn’t?

  161. 161
    Lamh36 says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): because the distraction is the thing… and it the arms of butt hurt feelings by maligned media and allies the distraction wins. and of course allies feed it.

    I personally stopped commenting on the media butt hurt posts as a rule since I noticed my Twitter TL yesterday filled with more “allies” discussing the distraction rather than like Soledad OBrien who said, yeah, it happened…let’s not miss the byline though and went to discuss more about what these kids accomplished and the real goings on at Mizzou that the media WAS NOT covering…period

  162. 162
    Paul in KY says:

    @dmsilev: That is so fiendish!!! Boy, those Republican geniuses (like The Smiler) sure know how to stop the press from covering their foodfights!

  163. 163
    VincentN says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Obviously, you can use your hand to block a camera. Celebrities do it to paparazzi all the time. So yeah the press has a right to try to take photos of you in public and you have the right to turn away or ask them to stop.

    I’m not sure what the argument is here. Betty is saying it’s a bad idea for the kids to turn away the press like this. I don’t think anyone is saying that they don’t have the right to do that. But the press still has the right to assert themselves into newsworthy events in public spaces. So I suppose Betty is arguing that these kids are violating the spirit of the First Amendment by trying to kick the press out, but I don’t think she’s saying that they’ve banned free speech in their area.

  164. 164

    @MomSense:

    I suspect that the protesters aren’t the only people in their early 20s who got a little too amped up by the adrenaline of the moment. This is two sets of students trying to figure out how to negotiate this moment, not students vs professional journalists.

  165. 165

    @Betty Cracker:

    Again, as someone who was a section editor for my college paper, I think there’s a second teachable moment coming up, and it will be the editor’s discussion with the photographer about how you can’t just bull your way into a crowd to get the best picture. I’ve been there.

  166. 166
    Marc says:

    @Betty Cracker: I wonder if their reflexive defenders here will get the memo, or whether they’ll continue to defend what the students themselves recognize as a foolish mistake. Good for them to listen to what others say, rather than spouting insults about old white people (which some here apparently think is a wise tactic.)

  167. 167
    Marc says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): “Both sides do it” is not always the right answer. Sometimes your team screws up, and the sooner you admit it the better.

  168. 168
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @Tommy: Pedant alert: The difference between the terms “libel” and “slander” is whether the (allegedly) defamatory statements are published in writing or orally.

    “Public” has nothing to do with the distinction. “Public” is only relevant with regard to whether the claimant is a public official, a public figure or a limited purpose public figure. Private figures need only prove negligence with regard to publication of the false statement, while those who fall under the various categories of public must show publication with actual malice (or reckless disregard for the truth).

    /pedantry
    Interesting, and I’m sure previously noted, that Mizzou the journalism faculty have vited to rescind her appointment.

    http://www.columbiamissourian......ea580.html

  169. 169

    @Marc:

    And they did. Any chance that the photographer’s defenders might admit that pushing people out of the way might not have been the best idea, either?

    Like I said, I would be more concerned about this if it was adult protesters vs professional journalists, but it’s striking me a lot more as the kind of learning experience one gets on a college campus. Not every lesson is learned inside the classroom, etc.

  170. 170
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @Tommy: Pedant alert: The difference between the terms “libel” and “slander” is whether the (allegedly) defamatory statements are published in writing or orally.

    “Public” has nothing to do with the distinction. “Public” is only relevant with regard to whether the claimant is a public official, a public figure or a limited purpose public figure. Private figures need only prove negligence with regard to publication of the false statement, while those who fall under the various categories of public must show publication with actual malice (or reckless disregard for the truth).

    Same comment in moderation for link to story of Mizzou journalism faculty voting to rescind her appointment.

  171. 171
    Linnaeus says:

    Maybe it’s time for the student activists to do a little counter-journalism.

  172. 172
    MomSense says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    I think the conflict aspect of this is being overblown because it takes the focus off of the big issue which is that after years and years of ignoring racism on campus, the students organized a movement that successfully held the administrators accountable. The football team realized that they have significant financial leverage and they used it beautifully. I’m rooting for them to keep organizing and making progress.

  173. 173
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Marc: I’ll take “continue to roger that poultry” for $500, Alex!

  174. 174
    Cervantes says:

    @goblue72:

    Once a MAWW, always a MAWW.

    That makes no sense.

  175. 175
    Corner Stone says:

    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): Some things once seen can not be unseen. This? Seen.

  176. 176
    mtiffany says:

    That is fucking hard to watch, not least of which is that this clip adds to the media library Fox can use to prove the ‘liberals are the ones who want to suppress the free speech rights of the people they don’t agree with,” and that on college campuses liberal professors are ready to punish anyone that disagrees with them. And duggar me with a dirty needle, in this particular instance, they’re right, because that is exactly what happened here. There is no excuse for ANY of that behavior from those students and especially not that professor at 6:24.

  177. 177
    Linnaeus says:

    At this rate, ConcernedStudent1950 may set a record for fastest movement flame-out.

    And reports of its death may be greatly exaggerated.

  178. 178
    kc says:

    @goblue72:

    I’m a little disappointed to see you vigorously defending that display of white supremacy by force, “goblue” [snicker]

  179. 179
    kc says:

    @kc:

    White privilege:

    [Blonde white student] *Extremely Becky voice*: “I BELIEVE IT’S MY RIGHT TO WALK FORWARD!” [shoves Asian guy, suffers no consequences]

  180. 180

    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):

    Just because I haven’t brought it up yet today, do you know who first successfully argued in court that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel?

    You know who. ;-)

  181. 181
    mtiffany says:

    @goblue72: Yes, because people power-tripping on the the high of their own success never turn to excess. The Reign of Terror and the Cultural Revolution are just myths invented by regressive and reactionary concern trolls to impede the progress of the True Believers of the Righteous Cause.

  182. 182
  183. 183

    @MomSense:

    People v Croswell, bitchez!

    (According to Wikipedia, he technically didn’t win because the Supreme Court deadlocked, but the state of New York used his arguments in re-writing their libel laws.)

  184. 184
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @Mnemosyne (tablet): You must like that show so much because of its subject : ) he’s a completely underappreciated member of his specific historical cohort. And he’s got a musical you’re a fan of also, too, I hear.

  185. 185

    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):

    If I ever get to meet Lin-Manuel, I’m going to thank him for writing a musical about the Founding Fathers that means we have a 4th of July alternative to 1776. Because G has been making me watch that ish every year since we got married.

  186. 186
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Cervantes: This isn’t his first “MAWW” eruption. It didn’t make a lot of sense the first time either, but I think it’s a lame attempt at age-shaming with a dash of sexism. (Though you’d think an alleged spring rooster who was determined to go down that inadvisable path might want to stop using his grandpa’s birth year as part of his Internet handle…)

  187. 187
    Corner Stone says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    “MAWW”

    Memorably Attractive Wonderful Woman?

  188. 188
    MomSense says:

    @Mnemosyne (tablet):

    Not only are we Hamilfans, but we also have Hamilbrain. Something about the man and/or the musical is appropriate to just about every conversation.

    This isn’t my first broadway obsession. We’ve already discussed A Chorus Line, but I was also obsessed with Evita when I was a kid. My sister and I even worked out a routine that was word for word the ad for the show that was playing endlessly in NY at the time. We were pretty young so it made it all the more ridiculous. My stepdad dragged us onstage at one of his gigs and the audience loved it. The ad played so much that everyone knew it by heart.

  189. 189

    @MomSense:

    My niece has been doing chorus for a few years and is starting to get into musicals on her own, so I’m hoping to bond with her over that. She apparently saw a high school production of “A Chorus Line” and went bonkers over it.

    “Godspell” was freakin’ huge with us Catholics when I was a kid — we even used to sing parts of it during Mass. I probably still know big chunks of it.

    Also “Little Shop of Horrors,” followed shortly by “Beauty and the Beast,” by the same songwriting team.

  190. 190
    MomSense says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    I’ve done Godspell many times. Loved Hair when I was a kid even though I only heard the cast album and never saw it performed. I used to sing Beauty and the Beast for my young students when they did well. “He’s especially good at expectorating” is an all time great lyric.

  191. 191
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    I would think that a journalist covering a protest would move with the protest and continue to shoot pictures. This photographer chose to stand in one spot as the protesters moved and got confrontational when asked to move. He chose to insert himself into the event rather than record it. Did both sides offer less than perfect First Amendment and privacy rights arguments? Yes, but that’s not the point (a bunch of people upthread were equally off base on the law involved). The photographer fucked up by putting himself into the story.

  192. 192
    Cervantes says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    This isn’t his first “MAWW” eruption. It didn’t make a lot of sense the first time either, but I think it’s a lame attempt at age-shaming with a dash of sexism.

    What didn’t make sense, specifically, was this:

    Once a MAWW, always a MAWW.

    Vanity aside, no one who reaches “MA” is always “MA.”

  193. 193
    mtiffany says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    This photographer chose to stand in one spot as the protesters moved and got confrontational when asked to move. He chose to insert himself into the event rather than record it.

    According to that logic women who dress provocatively deserve to get raped. It’s victim blaming and it’s bullshit.

    Tim Tai had every right to stand where he was and not be coerced to move through either thinly-veiled threats of violence “You need to go,” “You lost this one, you need to go,” (false) accusations of sexual assault (a female can clearly be heard saying “Don’t touch me,” “He TOUCHED me!”) or out-and-out physical force by people linking arms and pushing him back.

  194. 194
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @mtiffany:

    According to that logic women who dress provocatively deserve to get raped.

    Bullshit.

    Tim Tai had every right to stand where he was and not be coerced to move …..

    Sure, he had a right to stand in the way of the protesters. Because he felt like it or because he was counter-protesting or whatever. OTOH, if he is there are a member of the press to record the event, why did he make himself a part of it? He is a photographer and he sees the group moving – how did it aid his job for him to insist on standing in one spot?

  195. 195
    Cervantes says:

    @Corner Stone:

    “MAWW”

    Memorably Attractive Wonderful Woman?

    Mothers Against Wunk Wiving.

  196. 196
    Keith G says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    if he is there are a member of the press to record the event, why did he make himself a part of it? He is a photographer and he sees the group moving – how did it aid his job for him to insist on standing in one spot?

    That’s not what happened….oh jesu…that is not what happened.

    The brave student who was a reporter was confronted by tender snowflakes who have no understanding of what happens when an intentionally news worthy event is enacted in a public space. They chose to make this a viral event, not the one stalwart kid who was doing the right thing.

    At the 44 sec mark, the dumb-ass, white squish who says “You don’t have a right to take our photos” win the Sarah Palin award for profound ignorance of how the US Constitution has been interpreted. This is 8th grade stuff. Fuck, he is dumb.

  197. 197
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Keith G: Re-watch the first 30 seconds or so. The photographer insists on staying in one spot despite the fact that the protesters are moving forward. Why? The fact that the protesters subsequently handled it poorly does not mean that the photographer did not insert himself into the events.

  198. 198
    kc says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    ETA: Not that it should make any damn difference if he “chose to remain in one spot.”

  199. 199
    kc says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Jesus Christ. Watch this longer video.

  200. 200
    kc says:

    Think my favorite part of the longer video is when one of the protesters talks about calling the cops on the photographers.

  201. 201
    kc says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Did both sides offer less than perfect First Amendment and privacy rights arguments? Yes

    LOL, “both sides.” One side was dead wrong. That would be the side that was shoving the photographers out of a public space.

  202. 202
    Keith G says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Re-watch the first 30 seconds or so. The photographer insists on staying in one spot despite the fact that the protesters are moving forward. Why?

    Why? You might want to ask him.

    If I were to hazard a guess it would because he made a judgment about an event he wanted to document – and a way to document it which was within his rights. This was a story. He decided how to tell it to us. People challenged his judgement and then took physical action to stop him. It is the First Amendment for a reason.

    Actually let’s have Tim Tai use his own words.

    As a photojournalist, my job is often intrusive and uncomfortable. I don’t take joy in that. …You take the scene as it presents itself, and you try to make impactful images that tell the story. … And sometimes you have to put down the camera. But national breaking news on a public lawn is not one of those times.

    From The Columbia Journalism Review.

  203. 203
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @kc: @kc: I did watch that video. I was basing my comments on that video. The circle of legal derp that came form the protesters as time went on has exactly nothing to do with the point I am making.

  204. 204
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Keith G:

    And sometimes you have to put down the camera. But national breaking news on a public lawn is not one of those times.

    I am not suggesting that he do so. I am not even suggesting that he be unobtrusive or that avoiding making people uncomfortable. He could have recorded the events that were happening by moving a few feet back. By not doing so, I am suggesting that he made himself a participant in the events rather than a reporter of them. I am also suggesting that becoming a participant was not part of his job. By making and staying with the choice you said he made, he changed the story.

    ETA: YMM and seems to V.

  205. 205
    mtiffany says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Re-watch the first 30 seconds or so.

    Or judge the entire incident based on, you know, the whole fucking incident.

    The fact that the protesters subsequently handled it poorly does not mean that the photographer did not insert himself into the events.

    The fact that the rapist could not properly control his desire for intercource does not mean that the woman was not asking for it becasue by all accounts she was dressed like a slut.

    Bullshit apologia is bullshit apologia.

  206. 206
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @mtiffany: Bullshit again.

  207. 207
    Gian says:

    @Cervantes:
    when I google it it’s Maddison area weed warriors.

  208. 208
    brantl says:

    If they think that they get to have a demonstration, in a public place, and not have their picture taken, they need to learn the law.

  209. 209
    lethargytartare says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    why did he make himself a part of it?

    because he’s a dick

    He is a photographer and he sees the group moving – how did it aid his job for him to insist on standing in one spot?

    it allowed him to feel like an embedded wartime photojournalist instead of the the soon-to-be unemployable 20something with a journalism degree he’s destined to become.

    it has the added benefit of providing fodder for a bunch of concern trolls who for some reason want to undermine a successful application of protest and civil disobedience.

  210. 210
    lethargytartare says:

    @Keith G:

    The brave student who was a reporter was confronted by tender snowflakes who have no understanding of what happens when an intentionally news worthy event is enacted in a public space. They chose to make this a viral event, not the one stalwart kid who was doing the right thing.

    jesus christ, this was a belligerent, self-important jackass confronting college kids, not Larry fecking Burrows. you, and he, need to get over yourselves

  211. 211
    Brandon says:

    If you need further proof of why the students distrust the media, I think this blog itself provides a ripe example. Hundreds of words about students intimating a student journalist behaving like a jerk. Not a single post or mention of the fact that Black students are right now leaving the campus due to death threats against their lives. This goes part and parcel with the fact that no one was reporting on and there was no concern by the administration to responsibly and vigorously investigate the hate crimes that occurred on campus. So yeah, it looks pretty dim when the only thing that raises your ire enough to speak about what is happening there is to criticize the students who have in fact tried to promote real change in their lives.

  212. 212

    […] See also Steve M and Betty Cracker. […]

  213. 213
    Paul in KY says:

    @Gian: That sounds like a fun group!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] See also Steve M and Betty Cracker. […]

Comments are closed.