Cross-posted from https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/55777869
A judge has denied the Los Angeles Police Department’s emergency motion asking to lift an injunction that restricts the use of force against the press. That denial comes after the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Friday to request the city attorney’s office withdraw the emergency motion.
LAPD filed the emergency motion in an attempt to lessen the use-of-force restrictions against journalists ahead of Saturday’s No Kings protests, where large crowds are expected.
The City Council motion, brought forward by councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Monica Rodgriguez, cited that it was in response to LAist’s reporting.
Adam Rose, press rights chair at the Los Angeles Press Club, in a written statement said, “My read is the motion was mainly denied on procedural grounds. The false emergency was of LAPD’s own making.”
These headlines are too confusing.
Didn’t the LAPD start a decades long program to entice kids to narc on their parents?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education
Can someone steal man the other side? This isn’t making sense to me.
The public reason they gave was it is an impractical standard that would hinder their ability to protect the public, the restriction was raised by a federal case on June 16th because of the weapons used against the press last time no kings organized mass US protests in June
https://lapublicpress.org/2025/10/no-kings-rally-press-protections/
The actual reason is if journalists aren’t allowed you can control the narrative on what is happening and blame victims, and indiscriminately fire tear gas and less-lethal munitions into crowds of civilians
They want to beat the shit out of journalists. Pretty cut and dry.
Remember that whenever shit goes down - the LAPD lobbied for the right to physically harm you.
And Pigs wonder why ACAB is gaining so much traction. Oh well, more necks for the guillotine.
How can anyone go in front of a judge and seriously ask to be able to brutalize journalists?
It clearly demonstrates how twisted they are. They literally believe that these are reasonable requests, and it is only the evil, America-hating Lib judges who are preventing them from doing what ALL Americans want, because we all hate the media and the 1st Amendment.
nazi’s do nazi things…
The Nazi’s didn’t ask a judge, they just stripped the press of their rights and installed a propaganda mouthpiece. No, this is just sad, pitiful, and weak.
LAPD: Your Honor, can I beat up your little kid?
JUDGE: No.
LAPD: aw shucks, oooook. (sulks away).
The reaction to the judge’s refusal would be more like: “That isn’t fair! You suck! I’m going to get even, just watch!”
No we’re still in that early fascist period where they try to keep the mask on and legitimize their brutality through the courts. What’ll probably happen now is they brutalize journalists along with the rest of the public anyway and try to legitimize it after the fact, and if/when that doesn’t work they’ll just outright lie about the situation to gaslight everyone.
Eventually, the courts will block their most covered policies, and then they will just defy the courts, and do whatever the fuck they want. Then it will be Concentration Camp time.
Weird spelling of revolution time.
In fairness, what does it take to claim to be a journalist these days. Streaming activist can claim to be journalists. So basically, anyone with a phone camera out can claim to be a journalists. That would include the right wing “influencers” trying to instigate incidents. Seems to me they need to define journalists by actions (and perhaps require significant signage on the person). And probably need a law against pretending to be a journalist as a cover for violence. But that last law would probably be abused.
So basically, anyone with a phone camera out can claim to be a journalists.
As opposed to requiring someone be employed by one of a handful of billionaire-owned corporations in order to exercise their 1st Amendment right to document events happening around them?
The law doesn’t protect someone actively committing crimes just because they say they’re a journalist, which makes your whole point moot. What it does protect is someone standing around recording but not engaging in illegal behavior. They’re asking to be able to commit violence against the latter group.
Did you even read?
I litterally said it should be defined by thier actions. And the law does in fact require they are working for a news agency, and doesn’t say define journalist by thier actions. Which allows anyone on the scene with a camera to claim they are a journalist, even when they aren’t, and then act anyway they want. That is why they wanted to suspend the law.Did I even read what? Your barely legible comments? Yes. The article? Yes. The 1st Amendment? Also yes.
The 1st Amendment says nothing about “working for a news agency” in order to exercise said right, so you’ll need to list the specific law you’re referring to when you’re making these claims about what it says, especially the parts about requiring people “to work for a news agency” and allowing people to “act any way they want.” These are both absurd claims not backed by any law I’ve ever heard of nor do they make any sense.
The article clearly lists the reasons why they wanted to suspend the Constitution, namely that by not doing so theyre exposing themselves to liability after already paying out $68 million for violating people’s rights and also to make their jobs easier.
You read the article? Really? Why lie? The article is about a state of california court, city council, and local police department. Search on the word constitution and you will only find this.
"We expect demonstrations this weekend to be safe, respectful and consistent with the rights guaranteed to every resident under the Constitution.”
I was wrong on it being about a law, it was about an injunction. The injuction was related to the law I looked up about Californias definition of a journalist. Which is the reason for the dispute. The injunction uses the term journalist which based on the law is both unprovable on the scene, and specifies working for a news organiztion. Neither the injunction, nor the law that defined journalist made an exception for that person who claims to be a jounalist participating in or instigating violence.
What has been seen in portland is right wing streamers, claiming to be untouchable because they are “media”. All while they try to start fights with the protestors.
You read the article? Really? Why lie? The article is about a state of california court, city council, and local police department. Search on the word constitution and you will only find this.
🤦♂️ the US Constitution supersedes state and local laws when they conflict with one another. You should have recognized the context clues from the section you quoted as they’re saying the exact same thing that I am.
consistent with the rights guaranteed to every resident under the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
The injuction was related to the law I looked up about Californias definition of a journalist.
So quote the law then. Its a simple copy and paste. Please point out the sections where it states that people can “act however they want” at a protest provided they claim to be a journalist. Also quote where it states journalists must work for a news organization, bonus points if you also provide the accompanying list of “approved news organizations” that would be needed for such a law to exist.
What has been seen in portland is right wing streamers, claiming to be untouchable because they are “media”. All while they try to start fights with the protestors.
This is my backyard and many of these people have been arrested for disorderly conduct as this isn’t a protected right whether you’re a journalist or not. Also why are you bringing up Portland when you chastised me because “the article is about a state of california court, city council, and local police department.”
This is pure nonsense.
That does not make any sense, why would they want to harm innocent people?
The cops are a right-wing paramilitary organization. Crushing leftists is practically in their job description.
There’s a reason why cops are used as strikebreakers.
Wow. Really?
“Are we the baddies?”
If the police can’t handle the size of the protests then it stops being their responsibility and is the responsibility of the government to redress the grievances that brought so many people out that it overwhelmed the police.
If they feel so overwhelmed by peaceful protests, imagine what would happen if it turned violent.
I can and it gives me feels
They emergency requested WHAT? They need some serious lectures on democracy and how it works. Emergency-quick.
They have an average IQ of like 83, what would the point be?
Why would information about democracy be relevant? This is the us
Like they would listen or care
Dear LAPD,
FAFO assholes.
Honestly, California and LA need to do better. Nobody is telling either what kind of police they should have, and it’s a disgrace that they come up with LAPD.
LA spends half its entire city budget on these fuckwits. Fully half. Every other department has to share the remaining half.
Yeah, I remember someone complaining about the cost of homeless services in the city budget and I couldn’t even find it in the published numbers. It was lumped in with other social services and all of them dwarfed by the enormous cost of police and fire services.
it rivals NYPD, THATS why both are the most corrupt of any PDs, eventhough almost all are corrupt. LAPD has actual gang members in them
It’s almost like money and power are terrible corrupting influences that also attract the worst humans. Weird
Don’t forget the LA County Sheriff… just as bad, slightly different jurisdiction…
Hydee Feldstein Soto Has an interesting wkipedia page.
Hydee Feldstein Soto (born 1958) is an American attorney and politician, who is the incumbent City Attorney of Los Angeles. She is a member of the Democratic Party.
. . . In June 2024, Michelle McGinnis, a veteran prosecutor in the City Attorney’s office, filed a legal claim alleging that Feldstein Soto retaliated against her for reporting “legal and ethical violations.” McGinnis claimed that Feldstein Soto based some of the office’s decisions on prosecutions on “personal relationships” or “perceived political gain,” including telling employees she wanted to stop prosecuting corporate defendants and singling out an individual protestor for prosecution. McGinnis reported that after objecting to these decisions, she was “subjected to a series of adverse employment actions and ultimately placed on administrative leave, removed from the office, and prohibited from further contact with office colleagues and employees."[14] In July, another employee claimed that Feldstein Soto routinely read her employees’ emails without their knowledge, and two more former employees filed retaliation claims. In August, Feldstein Soto requested $500,000 from the City of Los Angeles to fund a legal response to the claims. However, the City Council only authorized $50,000.[15]
. . . Under Feldstein Soto’s leadership, her office sued journalist Ben Camacho and the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, a local advocacy organization, to return a flash drive containing photographs of LAPD officers. The City of Los Angeles had given Camacho the pictures in response to a public records request, and the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition subsequently published them on the website WatchTheWatchers.net as well as for download on the Internet Archive [35] A coalition of media organizations denounced the lawsuit as limiting the freedom of the press.[36] Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky commented that “the city is on very weak legal grounds”.[37] In June of 2024, The city of Los Angeles agreed to pay $300,000 in a tentative settlement to Knock LA journalist Ben Camacho and the group Stop LAPD Spying Coalition for their legal fees.
