Ellison opposes motion to exempt journalists from arrest during protests

[TexasTowelie]

The office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is opposing a motion that seeks to exempt journalists from arrest or use of force during protests.

In June, the ACLU sued law enforcement and the City of Minneapolis for allegedly targeting journalists trying to cover protests after the death of George Floyd, seeking damages for injured journalists and a temporary restraining order to ban law enforcement from using force, including tear gas and rubber bullets, against media. They said that police actions violated the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Now, Ellison’s office is arguing that the court should deny similar motion from a group of journalists for a temporary restraining order against law enforcement in the wake of protests over the police killing of Daunte Wright. They say there is no precedent for First Amendment protection against a dispersal order.

“The media is not (and cannot be) exempt from dispersal orders,” according to a brief filed by Ellison’s office in its role as legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety. Law enforcement uses dispersal orders to force people to leave an area.

Read more: https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/ellison-opposes-motion-to-exempt-journalists-from-arrest-during-protests/

[Ocelot II]

1. The journalists won, got the TRO.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20618077-tro-minnesota-journalists-at-protests-goyette

[TexasTowelie]

4. Thanks.

I saw an article about the TRO being issued by the judge at the Minnesota Reformer. I misunderstood this article when I posted it and thought that Ellison was giving his opinion after the judge granted the TRO.

[Fullduplexxx]

2. Wtf ellie

Law enforcement uses dispersal orders to force people to leave an area.
No Keith they use it to cover up their assault

[TreasonousBastard]

3. I'm not sure where the law is on this, but I believe that journalists are the documentarians...

who record happenings. There is neither need nor benefit from clearing them out unless they begin taking sides or causing danger themselves. Not danger to themselves, though. Like firemen and medics, they accept danger as part of the job.

Allowing cops to arrest journalists simply for doing their jobs has nothing to do with public safety but is simply authoritarian rule.

[riversedge]

5. see this: Gov exempted journalists from nightly curfews but not from orders from law enforcement....

https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/ellison-opposes-motion-to-exempt-journalists-from-arrest-during-protests/
.........In the motion for a temporary restraining order, six journalists and the Communications Workers of America union say they and other media were targeted by police during the summer George Floyd protests. MPD and State Patrol said that journalists put themselves in danger by remaining in the dispersal area as protestors got violent.

During a protest in Brooklyn Center on Monday, police and National Guard issued dispersal orders of the media, herding them to a new coverage location near the police station. But some didn’t comply.

The Governor’s Executive Order issued Monday, which created nightly curfews, exempted media from the curfew but didn’t exempt them from orders by law enforcement.

Ellison’s office argues “No one, including curfew-exempted members of the media, is entitled to remain in an area subject to a lawful dispersal order.”

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I still think he is wrong. The default should be that journalists (not thrillseekers or

wannabees) are allowed. If access is denied, there should be specific reasons.

Journalists know how to cover wars, forest fires, revolutions, volcanoes and dam breaks without getting in the way, so it makes no sense that they can't cover a demonstration. Especially when it's apparent that the greatest danger to them may be the police themselves.

On edit-- anyway, they won, so far.

[riversedge]

7. I agree with you.

[Owl]

8. I agree with Ellison. He's doing the best in a bad situation.