Kansas GOP threatens to revoke press passes if papers report on people arrested protesting them
Source: Raw Story/Kansas City Star
By Sarah K. Burris - May 29, 2019
Republican state Senate President Susan Wagle tried to make a “Trump move” Wednesday when she threatened to revoke the press pass of Kansas City Star reporters. Her beef was that the reporters were likely to cover the arrest of protesters at the capitol.
Unfortunately for Wagle, threatening the press generally means the story will explode and go everywhere, humiliating the persons who made the threat.
According to local McClatchy editor Colleen Nelson, the Kansas City Star‘s lawyers had to send a letter explaining the Constitution to the leader who swore an oath to uphold it.
“Censoring the Kansas press are not only unconstitutional, but beneath your office,” attorney Bernard J. Rhodes said. It’s also a violation of her oath of office.
Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/kansas-gop-threatens-to-revoke-press-passes-if-papers-report-on-people-arrested-protesting-them/?utm_source=push_notifications
May 29, 2019
Via E-Mail - Susan.Wagle@senate.ks.gov
The Honorable Susan Wagle
President, Kansas Senate
Kansas State Capitol
300 SW 10th Street
Topeka, KS 66612
RE: The First Amendment
Dear President Wagle:
On behalf of The Kansas City Star, The Wichita Eagle—and the more than 1 million readers of
the two papers—I am writing to protest your unconstitutional action in threatening to revoke the
press pass of any reporter who stayed on the Senate floor to cover the arrest of protestors during today’s session of the Kansas Senate.
Your Chief of Staff, Harrison Hems, justified your decision by saying, “I’m just telling you it’s a
privilege to have a press pass, to be on the floor, to document.” This statement by Mr. Hems
(who said he was acting at your direction) reflects either an ignorance of—or a purposeful insult
to—the First Amendment rights of the free press in this Country.
Repeated decisions have held the press have an absolute First Amendment right to photograph
the actions of public officials on public property. See, e.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st
Cir. 2011) (“[A] citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in
the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”
); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir.
2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials
do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest." ); Iacobucci v.
Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999) (police lacked authority to prohibit citizen from recording
commissioners in town hall "because [the citizen's] activities were peaceful, not performed in
derogation of any law, and done in the exercise of his First Amendment rights" ).
Such activities are protected by the First Amendment because without the right to make a recording of an event, one would necessarily lose the right to show that recording to others.
More:
https://media.kansascity.com/livegraphics/2019/pdf/WagleLtr052919.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read
Our America.
