Latest Attack On A Free Press: Reporter Arrested For Asking Questions To Trump Administration Officials

from the um-what? dept

Another day, another attack on a free press. The latest: a long-time reporter, Daniel Heyman, of the Public News Service in West Virginia was arrested for asking questions of Trump administration officials. Heyman yelled some questions to Health & Human Services Director Tom Price along with White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway:

Daniel Ralph Heyman, 54, with the Public News Service of West Virginia, was freed on $5,000 bond Tuesday night on a charge of "willful disruption of government processes," according to a criminal complaint.

“The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol,” the complaint states. It adds Heyman caused a disturbance by “yelling questions at Ms. Conway and Secretary Price.”

Whether you like it or not, the press is kind of supposed to ask questions of elected officials. That's their job. And, sure, some will argue that the complaint says that he was "aggressively breaching the secret service agents," but others on the scene indicated nothing beyond ordinary questioning happened:

Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price's group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was racing after them.

"I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that," she told Public News Service. "Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody's attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone's space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself."

And, making matters worse, rather than admitting to over-aggressive enforcement, Price is cheering on the arrest:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price on Wednesday commended police in West Virginia for “doing what they thought was appropriate” in arresting a journalist who shouted questions at him, but added that it wasn’t his call to say whether they took the proper measures.

Price said the reporter confronted him while he was walking down a hallway. “That gentleman was not in a press conference,” he said.

I'm curious if Price (or anyone else, for that matter) could point to where in the First Amendment there's a rule that says the press is only allowed to ask questions "at a press conference." That's not how it works. There's also this:

Asked Wednesday by STAT whether he thought Heyman should have been arrested, Price said: “That’s not my decision to make.”

Well, that's only partially true. Obviously, the local law enforcement gets to make that decision, but there's nothing stopping a competent public official from telling law enforcement to knock it off and to answer a few basic questions from a reporter.

In an era where we're hearing more and more about both attacks on a free press, as well as the need for a stronger press, these kinds of shenanigans should not be allowed. In the past, when we've covered police arresting reporters, the courts have come out repeatedly in favor of the reporters (that whole First Amendment thing still matters). But that's of little use in the moment when police are dragging reporters off to jail for shouting questions outside a press conference.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 4:05am

    mr masnick's fake news.

    attack, yes. but why you try to distort it with inserting trump in the title?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 4:56am

      Re:

      If you can't even read an article that directly answers your questions, stop posting anywhere.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 4:57am

      Re:

      Pookie... can you tell the class who appointed him?
      Can you tell us who's special advisor was walking with him?

      I find it frightening that your only concern appears to be the use of the word Trump to accurately portray the players involved instead of concern that a member of the press who no one else except the public offical seems to think was being over the top.

      But by all means hit reply and scream but her emails to try and distract from the idea that the Trump Administration lies to and about the press when it suits them, and that this time it has an arrest that most likely was bogus to keep a politician from being upset because someone asked him a question.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:05am

      Re:

      Hey! Welcome back from your nap, Rip van Winkle.

      Don't let Trump's constant predecessor blaming fool you. Trump was elected and sworn into the highest office of the land, so the Whitehouse Senior Advisors and HHS Directors are members of the Trump Administration.

      This is how Republicans do Government, baby!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:24am

      Re:

      Why do you disrupt the comments by insert partisanship into everything?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:25am

      Re:

      Ohh fake news is on my right wing nutjob bingo card. I just need triggered and liebral for a blackout!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:53am

      Re:

      So, "fake news" now means "accurately reported on every level, but not using the specific words I prefer to read"?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 8:48am

        Re: Re:

        Hasn't it always?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        me, 11 May 2017 @ 8:53am

        Re: Re:Fake News = Not Approved propaganda

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 1:37pm

        Re: Re:

        I'm still waiting for someone to actually give a hard definition of 'fake news' that doesn't boil down to 'Something I don't like'.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't understand the ongoing confusion really. The term 'fake news' first appeared to accurately describe stories being posted that were completely fabricated with little to no basis in truth. Not partisan opinion pieces but events that simply didn't occur. Low-intellect morons are now using it to disparage stories they don't agree with or want to discredit for their own purposes, but they are wrong and the definition hasn't changed. Words still mean things. I hope...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 12 May 2017 @ 12:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          When it was originally coined, it referred to literally news that was fake. i.e. "Obama prays to Mecca every day", "Hillary eats babies for breakfast", etc. Since the election cycle was so full of that crap, some people stopped being able to work out what was real and what wasn't, so they now just think it refers to news that opposes their preconceived assumptions even if it's 100% verified factual information.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 4:19am

    > "willful disruption of government processes,

    It's a good job that the FCC did not think of this law the other nigh, as John Oliver certainly disrupted they process of pretending to listen to the public.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 4:58am

      Re:

      More wiggle words used to protect politicians from a possible photo op ruined by someone they've failed to represent complaining.

      Its nice we have free speech zones & laws they can use to silence critics.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 8:56am

        Re: Re:

        > Its nice we have free speech zones & laws they can use to
        > silence critics.

        We actually don't have those. Free speech zones were implemented under the Clinton/Gore administration, specifically at the DNC in Los Angeles, and were found unconstitutional by the court. Haven't been used since.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 8:57am

        Re: Re:

        (Oops, hit 'send' to soon.)

        Haven't been used since - except on college campuses where it's actually the supposed 'progressives'-- the leftists-- who insist on trying to relegate free speech to specific zones and areas on campus.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          btr1701 is a liar, 11 May 2017 @ 12:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They were used both before and since, becoming a widespread practice during the Bush Jr. League Administration (during th e inauguration, as I recall).

          Your partisan bias is obvious and does you no credit. The issue at hand isn't specific to R or D or "left" or "right", whatever you think those words mean.

          But do go on attacking people you don't know. Enjoy your Two Minutes' Hate.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 15 May 2017 @ 8:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > They were used both before and since, becoming a
            > widespread practice during the Bush Jr.

            Only to the extend that the court challenges filed during the waning years of the Clinton term hadn't been fully adjudicated at that point. Once the courts ruled that free speech zones are unconstitutional, they were done away with.

            > Your partisan bias is obvious and does you no credit.

            As if it's any greater than the rest of the folks here. The only difference is that you agree with the bias of the majority of the commenters here. I sure don't see you calling them out for it the way you did me.

            > Enjoy your Two Minutes' Hate.

            Now whose bias is showing?

            Having a differing political viewpoint or disagreeing with someone's political position is not 'hate'. I said nothing hateful in my post. I merely took a political/philosophical position with which you disagree.

            I'm sorry if I triggered you, but labeling everything you don't like and don't want to hear as 'hate' makes your bias obvious and does you no credit.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 6:20am

      Fake News engaging in Criminal Journalism

      Can't certain questions rise to the level of a crime, "willful disrupting of government processes", or "felony embarrassment of a politician"?

      What about a capital offense such as exposing government corruption by engaging in criminal activity known as "investigative journalism"?

      Or an act of treason such as when a journalist exposes government official traitors engaging in common ordinary capitalism to sell out our country to foreign interests?

      In a real dictatorship, journalists get approval from the government before publishing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 8:11am

        Re: Fake News engaging in Criminal Journalism

        Funny you should mention that, didn't some state just pass a law making it a felony for anyone to expose AG workers misbehaving & putting the food system at risk?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:11am

    The reporter was shouting repeatedly after being told not to. There is a difference between being a good reporter trying to get an answer for the public and acting like idiot because people are not paying attention to you.

    If I repeatedly yelled (USING ALL CAPS) in this forum the same statement over and over a dozen times I too would get banned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:22am

      Re:

      Except this forum is a private entity and banning doesn't deprive you from your freedom or your money. But don't let the small details get to you, keep your head buried in the sand, yes?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:27am

      Re:

      And if I called apples oranges I'd still be as wrong as you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:48am

      Re:

      "There is a difference between being a good reporter trying to get an answer for the public and acting like idiot because people are not paying attention to you."

      Yeah, every reporter should sheepishly retreat the moment an immediate answer is not forthcoming and never ask again. That's how you get answers from reluctant subjects /s

      I mean, seriously, you accept the government openly lying to you and it's the press's fault if they don't accept silence as an explanation?

      "If I repeatedly yelled (USING ALL CAPS) in this forum the same statement over and over a dozen times I too would get banned."

      No, you wouldn't. You'd have your comments reported by the community and future posts held for moderation. But you wouldn't get banned. Nor would the case you decided to post in make any difference.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:49am

      Re:

      You do understand the difference between a private forum and a public official, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:57am

      it's clickbait

      There's definitely a story here, but it is a click-bait headline and it's unfortunate.

      If I write "What time is it?" on my hand then punch you with it and get arrested, Mike's headline would read "Man Arrested for Asking the Time".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 6:09am

        Re: it's clickbait

        Your analogy might not be idiotic if the reporter had actually attempted any violent action. Alas...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:19am

          Re: Re: it's clickbait

          Why yes ... of course, asking a question is absolutely the same thing as punching one in the face. How could you not see this as being the truth.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 7:08am

          Re: Re: it's clickbait

          The point is, when he gets to court and they read the charges against him, they aren't going to say he's charged with "attempting to ask a question". That's what makes it clickbait. If this site is mostly advertising supported, then I guess there's justification. I still don't like it though.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 7:47am

            Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait

            "The point is, when he gets to court and they read the charges against him, they aren't going to say he's charged with "attempting to ask a question"."

            So, you're saying that the only valid headline is the one that parrots the official government line. All other reporting should be rejected, even if they're equally (or even more) accurate. Got it.

            Sorry, but when the Chinese held Ai Weiwei for "economic crimes", that doesn't mean that the reporters who noted he was being held for his activism were writing clickbait. (for example)

            "If this site is mostly advertising supported"

            It's not, and there's articles where it's explained why they don't mind people using ad blockers here.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 8:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait

              If I write a letter to Tom Price with the exact same questions in it, what do you think will happen? He has written proof that I asked the questions that are apparently illegal. Think I'll get arrested?

              > So, you're saying that the only valid headline is the one that parrots the official government line.

              The only valid headline is one that is objectively accurate. Trying to introduce emotion is where clickbait starts (and this headline is undoubtedly clickbait).

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 8:51am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait

                If you do not like this website why do you continually read it, post silly complaints and dodge obvious questions?

                Perhaps you would be more happy writing your own blog ... except I doubt many would read it.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 9:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait

                  I read it because it's mostly excellent. It's one of a few that I read with my ad blocker off.

                  I don't think anybody here is afraid of a little constructive criticism.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 10:37am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait

                    If that includes you, I would point out that the article sources it's reasoning for the headline - the eyewitness who disputes the official government/"what he'll be charged with" statement you are championing - and sourcing your reasoning is the exact opposite of clickbait.

                    So my constructive criticism for you is that your post was a bit reactionary and clickbaitey itself, under your terms, and maybe you should consider the replies to you as constructive criticism as well.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 10:57am

            Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait

            Neither the headline nor the court will contain "attempting to ask a question". The question was asked, repeatedly. He was arrested for aggressively and repeatedly asking a question, and the headline here reflects that. So do the actual charges, and the witnesses at the scene.

            So what's the problem again?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 11:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait

              Public servants aggressively refusing to gibe information so that the public can hold them accountable. They are meant to be servants and not masters after all.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 6:24am

      Re:

      Is it a form of expression or speech when a reporter repeatedly yells a fair question to a government official who refuses to answer?

      Could that also simply be a form of protest?

      In the distant future, say, a few days or a week from now, how will historians judge this?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 9:10am

        Re: Re:

        Things can simultaneously be a form of expression, an act of protest, and an illegal act.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 10:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yep.

          The question he's asking is, should this be illegal? Is it? Under current rights to both free speech and the right of press and public access to government, it doesn't seem like it should be.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 11:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I don't think he'll be prosecuted. If he is, I'd be very surprised if he's convicted.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 1:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              He didn't think he'd be arrested for it in the first place, either, but he was. Both of your comments completely dodge the question. Was it illegal? Should it be? Is this right?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 7:46pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                > Was it illegal?

                That's for the courts to decide.

                > Should it be?

                Should willful disruption of government processes be illegal? Yes. Should asking a question be illegal? No. And it isn't.

                > Is this right?

                If it went down as Mr. Price says it did, then no, of course it isn't. If it went down as the police report says, then perhaps it is. I guess it depends if he was disrupting government processes or not.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AL, 11 May 2017 @ 6:28am

      Re: getting banned

      Yes, you might get banned, as might the reporter for being annoying, perhaps even not doing as he was told.

      Would you get arrested however?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 3:14pm

      Re:

      So shouting deserves jail?

      Good lord that's obscene.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Cressman, 11 May 2017 @ 5:14am

    NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

    Please, not alt-left crazed headlines and cherry picked facts.

    The reporter was arrested for REPEATEDLY trying to get through the line of Secret Service agents who were on protection detail.

    He was warned twice and finally arrested for continuing.

    They did EXACTLY what they should have. Don't try to hide his bad behavior behind some journalistic shield.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:23am

      Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

      From a person in the scene:

      "I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that," she told Public News Service. "Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody's attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone's space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself."

      Of course you know more than someone who was there, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:25am

      Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

      The reporter was arrested for REPEATEDLY trying to get through the line of Secret Service agents who were on protection detail.

      According to other eyewitnesses, he did raise his voice in an attempt to make himself heard and get an answer to his questions, but he neither pushed nor assaulted anyone.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:40am

        Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

        For some reason, I find it hard to believe any eyewitnesses, because I'm assuming they're on the media side of this war.

        Kinda like the witnesses for some murders that caused riots were on the other side of that war, and their testimony turned out to be false.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:50am

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          "For some reason, I find it hard to believe any eyewitnesses, because I'm assuming they're on the media side of this war. "

          A war between the government and a free press? I know partisanship is getting ridiculous, but they've managed to convince you that the fourth estate is an enemy combatant now?

          Interesting that you assume that people who were actually there cannot be believed, so you have to believe the testimony of people who weren't...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Se Habla Espol, 11 May 2017 @ 7:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

            A war between the government and a free press? I know partisanship is getting ridiculous, but they've managed to convince you that the fourth estate is an enemy combatant now?

            Well, trump is the duly elected dictator; trump must therefore always be considered right; and trump says the press is the enemy (except for Bannon and his friends). What's the problem?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          dubious, 11 May 2017 @ 6:04am

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          So what you are saying is that you will not believe an eye witness, several, to an event because you assume they are affiliated with the media?

          I admit that there are issues with witness biases but you do realize that you are also unable to believe what the arresting officer(s) say because they are on the side of the official who did not want to be bothered by a reporter?

          I would love a video but until a video, several because one will never be adequate, appears that shows what happened I would rather side with several witnesses who were only witnesses and not directly involved over what either of the two parties say.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:23am

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          Your belief in alternative news has really affected your ability to function in the modern day world.

          Also, how is asking a question similar to a riot? I don't get it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          DannyB (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 6:36am

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          Let me help you with a more general statement that you can use in the future. It works in even more situations. You will find it very handy.

          "I wouldn't believe no matter what the evidence!"

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Cowardly Lion, 11 May 2017 @ 6:58am

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          "I'm assuming they're on the media side of this war." - If you believe this you have no idea how the media works; they're in massive competition with each other. And this "war" you speak of is as fake as hell.

          "For some reason, I find it hard to believe any eyewitnesses" - this makes you a bit douchey. For some reason, I find it hard to give your comment any credence.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 8:09am

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          You would make a great inquisitor, of the Spanish variety.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 8:55am

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          "I find it hard to believe any eyewitnesses"

          I envision you with fingers in ears singing "Lalala - I can't hear you"

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          jesus christ dude

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:28am

      Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

      So basically what you are saying is "stop using facts to defend your position." Why I do believe you have a future in this administration.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:30am

      Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

      Alt-left isn't on my right wing nutjob bingo card. Shit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 5:52am

        Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

        Do you have "dumb attempt to defend with a variation of term/meme used by the "left" to criticise the "right", but with no understanding of what it actually means to begin with"?

        That's a bit long-winded for a bingo card, but it's a regular tactic for idiots who think of politics as a team sport.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:18am

          Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

          The closest I have to that is "saying leftist with such a sneer that it would make Snidely Whiplash gasp with astonishment."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:01am

      ---- FALSE NARRATIVE

      well, yes --- the TD narrative here is heavily biased and spun.

      this incident with Daniel Heyman is trivial and no threat to general press freedom.

      However, Heyman should not have been arrested; it's typical police over-reaction, evident all over the nation.

      The "willful disruption of governmental processes" law is obviously stupid and unconstitutionally vague. No ordinary American ever heard of it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:33am

        Re: ---- FALSE NARRATIVE

        "no threat to general press freedom"

        Says you. What makes you an expert on this topic and why should I believe you?



        " No ordinary American ever heard of it."

        Or maybe they just made that up
        Or maybe that is one of those secret laws
        But yeah - nothing to worry about, move along, nothing to see here.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 10:43am

        Re: ---- FALSE NARRATIVE

        Alone it would be trivial. Combined with the fake-news narrative, the banning of press from the White House, shutting out American press but allowing Russian press in...

        I mean, yeah, alone it would be trivial. This isn't a lone act.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:28am

      Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

      Your alt-right alternative news is so bad that many stories are contradicted within a few days ... and apparently many who subscribe to such blather lack sufficient memory in order to detect their pathetic attempt at slight of hand.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:27am

    What behavior by a reporter is not allowed?

    Is there any behavior by a reporter that is not allowed? Can they yell in an elected officials face? How about continuously interrupting him and preventing him from being able to talk to others? Do they have to listen to orders from the police that are trying to keep order or can they ignore the police?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:35am

      Re: What behavior by a reporter is not allowed?

      I think you are asking the wrong questions

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 6:41am

      Re: What behavior by a politician is allowed?

      What behavior by a politician is allowed?

      Especially in a democracy that is supposed to be answerable to the people those politicians are openly betraying? They don't even try to hide it any more. Just as an example, just an example, they are happy to destroy our health care by passing a highly controversial bill that they won't even bother to read or understand, without letting the other party even see it first. Does that sound like the behavior of crooks trying to hide something?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 6:50am

    War On News

    Welcome to the new administration's War On News.

    When a government labels the news media as the enemy of the people; tries to discredit long time respectable media as "fake news" and "failing"; conducts a war like campaign against the media; and then begins to escalate that to physical violence . . .

    . . . that government needs to be changed immediately if not sooner!

    It is not just this minor incident. It is the entire pattern of how the administration regards the news media. The freedom of the press is something to be Trumpled under foot.

    Assuming democracy survives, which is by no means guaranteed, this will get worse before it gets better. Optimists are full of it and assume everything can be fixed. Pessimists are usually right. When people move from freedom to dictatorship they wonder what went wrong and how it could have happened. We're seeing it before our eyes. Right here on TD. For years now. Creeping by inches. But moving inexorably. No matter which party is in power.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 7:40am

      Re: War On News

      I'd call it the new level of transparency in government.

      Price said the reporter confronted him while he was walking down a hallway. “That gentleman was not in a press conference,” he said.

      See? Now you can only ask questions in a "press conference". So when will there be a press conference? "We'll get back to you on that."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Se Habla Espol, 11 May 2017 @ 7:59pm

        Re: Re: War On News

        See? Now you can only ask questions in a "press conference". So when will there be a press conference?

        "Sorry, you can't ask that. This isn't a press conference."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 9:03am

      Re: War On News

      Not too long ago, and maybe even now, we were complaining about the press being stenographers for the government and spewing out the administration's line. Now, even if the press is spewing the administrations line, it's fake news. It looks like the press has a long way to go to rehabilitate itself, on one hand to the public, and on the other hand to the administration. And just to be clear, those two positions are antithetical to each other.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 6:51am

    Heckling != Asking Questions

    Way to jump on the old douche-wagon there Mike.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 7:02am

      Re: Heckling != Asking Questions

      So you're saying that the guy wasn't arrested for asking questions, he was arrested for heckling? I'm... not sure that's much better.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 7:12am

      Re: Heckling != Asking Questions

      Heckling != Asking Questions

      Let me add Asking questions I don't want to hear != Heckling

      He's a public fucking servant. If he doesn't want to answer to the public, then he could just as easily find another line of work, instead of whining like a little bitch.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 7:47am

    Price said the reporter confronted him while he was walking down a hallway. “That gentleman was not in a press conference,” he said.

    A press conference. That's where Press Secretary Sean Spicer gets to pick and choose which reporters may ask a question. Often to get soft-ball questions from far-right sites with little or no credibility.

    Which is why media scrums are a standard part of reporting on government.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 8:00am

    You know the exciting thing about this whole event is that no one has answered the question the journalist was asking. "Is domestic violence considered a preexisting condition?"

    I guess we're all so wrapped up in this shit that it doesn't matter. Good work everyone, we're doing the administrations job for them!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McFortner (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 8:37am

    Press' responsibility?

    "Whether you like it or not, the press is kind of supposed to ask questions of elected officials."

    Whether you like it or not, breaching security multiple times to an area he is not authorized to is against the law. How would you like it, sir, if he had broken into your private residence to berate you with questions?

    Yeah, I didn't think so....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 8:49am

      Re: Press' responsibility?

      Nonsense. Media scrums are a standard part of reporting on government. It was a public building, not a private residence. Otherwise:

      "How would you like it, sir," if government officials only answered to the public at press conferences where they could personally pick who got to ask a question, favoring those with little or no credibility who will ask softball questions?

      Granted, it seems you'd like exactly that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 8:57am

      Re: Press' responsibility?

      Yes, yelling down a public hallway is exactly like breaking into a private residence. </snark>

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 9:07am

      Re: Press' responsibility?

      "breaching security"

      I'm a bit ignorant of this particular term ... perhaps you could enlighten me.

      Certainly, shouting is not a breach of security. Did he touch anyone? Duck 'n dodge? Throw something?

      What exactly constitutes this "breach" anyway. My guess is that it is a bullshit charge that will be dropped as soon as he gets council.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 9:20am

      Re: Press' responsibility?

      You guys just can't help yourselves with the bad analogies. It's like something in and/or around a thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    btr1701 (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 8:53am

    > ...that he was "aggressively breaching the Secret Service
    > agents," but others on the scene indicated nothing beyond
    > ordinary questioning happened:

    > Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for
    > the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price's
    > group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was
    > racing after them.

    But was the hallway closed to public and press? If the USSS closed down that area as part of the secure perimeter and this guy decided to ignore it, then he breached security, which is a violation of 18 USC 1752.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 9:03am

      Re:

      That would raise the question of *why* the hallway would be closed to public and press. Any elected official using security theatre to avoid questions from the press should be removed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 10:53am

        Re: Re:

        > That would raise the question of *why* the hallway would
        > be closed to public and press.

        That's pretty routine. Backstage areas, ingress and egress routes, are all kept clear and sterile in case of the need for evacuation.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 11:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The incident is clearly described as having taken place in a hallway, not an emergency exit doorway or staircase.

          Plus, if an evacuation ingress and egress route is for emergency use only, then why is the elected official using it?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 1:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yeah, that excuse smells of desperation.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 15 May 2017 @ 8:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > The incident is clearly described as having taken place
            > in a hallway, not an emergency exit doorway or staircase.

            And what leads to emergency exits and stairs?

            Yep, hallways.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 15 May 2017 @ 8:16am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > Plus, if an evacuation ingress and egress route is for
            > emergency use only, then why is the elected official
            > using it?

            The Secret Service keeps ingress and egress routes clear in case *they* have an emergency and need to quickly and safely evacuate the protectee. The emergency routes are set up *for* the protectee.

            (And neither of the protectees in this case were elected officials, so I don't even know why you brought that up.)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OA (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 9:51am

    A Broader Issue

    Incidents like this are broader, more connected and more serious than they appear:

    1. Increasingly, our nation as a society, seems to comfortably believe that to speak or be heard can only be done in narrow ways and with narrow timing if at all.

    2. We have large numbers of people who are mostly not heard and whose concerns are largely unrepresented. The responsibilities of both politicians and media are supposed to fall heavily in this area.

    3. Much of our popular culture effectively, when not willfully, "celebrates" the absence of invisible people.

    4. Membership in the invisible people club is accelerating, diversifying and pressuring in different "domains".

    5. Notice that some of the reaction to this incident is similar to popular attitudes on protests. We suppress the opportunities to speak, inquire and be heard. We create frustration and desperation. Then try to suppress and vilify the natural and inevitable responses.

    6. Problems like this are part of the spectrum of a single type of issue that I will refrain from labeling. Many of us "arbitrarily" object only at certain levels*. Due, in part, to this nation's "original sin" (which still has never been addressed) and that other manifestations of the issue are "useful". The Media helped grow the invisible class and are now being pressured to join it.

    OA

    *Whenever there is talk of another cop shooting of an unarmed black male there are plenty on the INTERNET who aggressively insist that being black is completely unimportant. Abuse against blacks by police is a very old issue. It was GUARANTEED to eventually spread outside of vulnerable minorities (for reasons that are outside the scope of this comment). ONLY after it spread did this "invisible issue" become outrageous. This spread also came with foolish and disingenuous comments like: "it's about class not race". Too many, in a wide variety of scenarios, think they can "solve" problems without correctly identifying them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 2:03pm

      Re: A Broader Issue

      "comfortably believe that to speak or be heard can only be done in narrow ways and with narrow timing if at all."

      aka: conservative/GOP/tea_party/freedom_caucus/law&order
      - the rest of us do not think that at all

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 1:40pm

    I don't know...

    I've seen plenty of instances where Trump's people have been "creative" about avoiding questioning and trying to control the press. I've also seen the press thinking that they have the God-given right to be incredibly rude, intrusive, and even rule-breaking in pursuit of any faint chance that they might be able to get a story. Who's right in this instance? I have no idea.

    Was the reporter going into an area that was supposed to be secure? It may be "just a hallway", but if it's supposed to be a secure area, and this reporter keeps barging into it... then I could see both versions being kind of true, but the arrest as still being justified.

    But as I said, I don't know. Did anybody by any chance grab some video?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 2:05pm

      Re: I don't know...

      Are you still upset about the recording of Mitt Romney ?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 2:22pm

        Re: Re: I don't know...

        What? No. What does that have to do with what I said?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 4:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: I don't know...

          This made me think of poor Mitt and his 47% gaffe, yeah, I guess that was a stretch.


          I've also seen the press thinking that they have the God-given right to be incredibly rude, intrusive, and even rule-breaking in pursuit of any faint chance that they might be able to get a story.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 2:52pm

      Re: I don't know...

      Given there was another eye-witness who wasn't arrested, I would guess that the area wasn't 'secure' and was open for others to use, so that at least would be out as far as justifications for the arrest.

      The statement made by that eyewitness would also seem to contradict the 'aggressive' narrative that the arrest was based on, though it's possible that the SS had a different idea as to what constituted 'too close' that differed from the eyewitness' and the arrested reporter's.

      The fact that 'yelling questions' was categorized as 'causing a disturbance' is all sorts of questionable on it's own, and the fact that it was included in the complaint does not bode well for the rest of the thing, especially given the other two points above.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tom (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 2:42pm

    If I read TFA correctly, the reporter, Mr Heyman asked a question of Mr Price as he walked by with other people,(assuming this was in a public space in the building, well within his rights to ask the question.) Mr Price declined to answer, also well with his rights. Mr Heyman, not content with the non-answer, pursued Mr Price and party, continuing to ask his question(s).

    Sounds like the real issue here is whether Mr Heymen's pursuit of asking his questions crossed the line of proper behavior and into the area of becoming a public disturbance. Sounds like some law enforcement thought so.

    Hopefully, there is some video of the incident prior to the arrest that can be viewed to see if Mr Heyman's actions in any way were a public disturbance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    William Braunfeld (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 3:26pm

    I'll be honest: I don't care if he was "being aggressive." I *want* investigative journalists to be aggressive. I want them to be brash, push boundaries, be willing to get in trouble for a scoop; that is how they find facts and discover the truth.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2017 @ 12:07pm

      Re:

      And people like yourself need to search a little harder for the truth because everything about this guy screams insanity.

      You can't have a socialized healthcare system if you have no incentives for people to join while they're healthy...But this so-called journalist claims that we should continue to allow people to game the system by only paying for health insurance once they're sick or hurt without any penalties.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        William Braunfeld (profile), 12 May 2017 @ 4:16pm

        Re: Re:

        Whteher someone "screams insanity" to you is, thankfully, not a legal standard.
        Also, your complaint is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2017 @ 8:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          My complaint is completely related as it's the exact issue that the defendant is claiming to be relevant to the freedom of the press, which it's not.

          He's an aggressive activist, not a journalist.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2017 @ 8:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          FFS, the guy may as well have been screaming at Price asking what his favorite color is...that's how ridiculous all of this is.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2017 @ 11:51am

    Pfft False Flag Journalism

    So arresting some nut aggressively charging and screaming over and over again at Price if domestic violence would be considered a pre-existing condition under the proposed health care overhaul is a violation of the 1st amendment?

    Sorry but the 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to act like an aggressive prick to anyone you please most especially if it was your intention to get your self arrested.

    Listen, this loon is talking about a tiny fraction of the population and is over-inflating all of this in some white night effort to draw it attention as if it's some terrible injustice - which it's not. This idiot doesn't understand that under the current conditions people end up paying less by going uninsured followed by joining the moment they get sick or hurt which is hurting everyone. "The purpose of these provisions isn’t to punish people who are sick, but to create an incentive for people to buy insurance while they are healthy."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.