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.”
You really just want someone to disagree with, I get that. But we are actually saying the same thing. The faxt. That the constitution protects these rights is exactly why when the police ask to remove this injuction it doesn’t change the overall protection given bythe constitution. It only changes the flawed state level injuction that is protecting people trying to create a riot from a peaceful protest.
It’s technically more than one law, but this link should take you to the part where they define journalist (they call it newsman which tells you how outdated it is) https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/california/#a-shield-law-statute
As for the injunction, I had it a little off. It was in fact a federal court. But it applied to DHS AND the police. The police were asking to be excluded for the reasons I have stated.
My ,ention of portland was to say that they learned of the tactic being used there, and wanted to prevent it in LA.