
Order temporarily blocks Feds from targeting press, legal observers in Portland - coronadisaster
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/23/894953202/order-temporarily-blocks-feds-from-targeting-press-and-legal-observers-in-portla
======
mcherm
An interesting point that this article does not mention, but which can be
found in other articles [2] or the order [2]:

The judge issuing the order specifically stated that this court has reviewed
and ruled on the the order so it is clearly established that it is legal and
thus qualified immunity does not apply.

I had not previously seen that technique for (potentially?) avoiding qualified
immunity.

[1] [https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/judge-
inclined-t...](https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/judge-inclined-to-
restrain-federal-law-enforcement-from-using-force-threats-dispersal-orders-
against-journalists-legal-observers.html)

[2] [https://aclu-
or.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu...](https://aclu-
or.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_tro_against_federal_defendants.pdf)

~~~
drtillberg
Similar function to a consent judgment[1]. Remedies can include citation for
contempt, continuing supervision .

[1] [https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexis-practice-advisor/the-
journa...](https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexis-practice-advisor/the-
journal/b/lpa/posts/enforcing-settlements-and-consent-decrees)

------
cabaalis
> U.S. District Judge Michael Simon issued a restraining order Thursday
> preventing federal agents from "arresting, threatening to arrest, or using
> physical force" directed at anyone they know to be a journalist or legal
> observer, unless they have probable cause to believe they have committed a
> crime.

> The order also blocks the defendants from seizing any photographic, audio
> and video recording equipment and press passes from people in those two
> categories, as well as from ordering them to stop recording or observing a
> protest.

Why is this not within the already defined rights of all Americans? I fail to
see why journalists would need a special use case.

~~~
jessaustin
Police (and some journalists themselves) would _love_ to see 1A limited to
journalists and 2A limited to racist rednecks (...and, one supposes, 3A
limited to families without pretty teenage daughters). The more the population
can be divided, the better, for authoritarians.

~~~
mijoharas
sorry, what are 1A, 2A and 3A?

~~~
jessaustin
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Sure, these abbreviations are USA-centric. I thought that would be OK given
the subject of TFA.

~~~
zenexer
I've lived in the US my entire life, and I was confused by your abbreviations.
I don't know what "TFA" means, either.

~~~
jessaustin
"The Fine Article". Many people who are interested in civil rights refer to
the amendments in this abbreviated fashion... It's fun to learn new things!

~~~
zenexer
It is! Nevertheless, I was confused at first. I’m sure I would’ve figured it
out eventually, given the context.

------
dj_mc_merlin
> ...preventing federal agents from "arresting, threatening to arrest, or
> using physical force" directed at anyone they know to be a journalist or
> legal observer, unless they have probable cause to believe they have
> committed a crime.

Is that not the case already?

~~~
prepend
What’s strange is that this order only applies to journalists and legal
observers. So if I’m just a peaceful protester, I can be arrested or be the
subject of physical force without probable cause?

~~~
dungdongdang
If the large crowd is told to disperse by government agents, you are no longer
a peaceful protester. You are free to protest, but you are not free to protest
at any location at any time. If once told to move, you do not, you can, and
were always able to be removed by use of physical force.

The reason these peaceful crowds are told to disperse, is they are often not
peaceful, they leave much damage to regular citizen's and business property
behind, and it's not your call whether the crowd poses a danger to my car
parked on the street, or my place of work. It's up to the law enforcement
assessing risk of the crowd causing damage, and if they think it will, even if
they have not, they have to disperse. Like when the crowd starts ignoring the
fact that cars drive on the streets trying to get home from work, and starts
walking through and blocking traffic. Or even leaving a pile of trash and
destroying the lawn of public or private property, which I have to pay to
restore with taxes.

Does your peaceful protest stay on the sidewalk? Does it carry its trash to
the nearest garbage can instead of dropping it on the street? Does it destroy
zero property and wait for the walk sign at intersections? Because if not, the
issue is not with the protest. It's with the things you are doing which are
not peaceful, to people not part of your peaceful protest.

I was moving apartments during one of these "peaceful" protests in Chicago. At
that point, they weren't burning buildings and destroying stores yet. It took
me 12 hours to move 2 minivan-loads of stuff. My brother was helping me. When
the police tried to get people to clear the roads, the people did not.
Instead, they threw a bunch of flamable shit in the parking lot where regular
people's cars were, and destroyed those cars. Because the cops tried to clear
the road so people, on the last of the month, could move their shit into the
new apartment. after working a full day. and having to work the next day.
after having 2 hours of sleep.

by the way, when my brother got home, his girlfriend's shitty old car was
broken into and needed to be repaired. good thing she was unemployed and
couldn't pay for it, otherwise it might have cost $200 instead of the free
ducktape + plastic bag combo.

peaceful for you does not mean peaceful for everyone. and the cops, and the
feds, are there to make it peaceful for everyone - not just you. when told to
disperse, so people like me can simply live our already stressful lives, you
refuse to, you are no longer peaceful, and should be thrown into a van and
removed. and if that takes tear gas, I'm cool with that, just like you're cool
with completely fucking up my life.

let me ask you this: forget protests. regular workday, mid-afternoon. a group
of people decide to just start walking in the middle of the road dropping
garbage everywhere and won't leave. what do you think should happen to them?
nothing? does the group being large make it ok?

~~~
maxlybbert
I’m bemused to see reports about the police overreacting to peaceful protests,
followed by a sentence or two acknowledging that fires were set at those same
protests.

~~~
IAmEveryone
There have been quite a few protests lately. Some of them involved vandalism,
especially on the first day. In Portland over the last few days, there was
some fireworks and a few trash cans were burning.

But the vast majority of protests were entirely peaceful. And and even greater
number of individual protesters have done nothing wrong.

The police doesn’t get to shoot you in the head because you look like the
people they saw on the news doing something wrong half-way across the country.

And even actual criminals aren’t fair game to police violence. This isn’t some
gang war between equals. The police is expected to be better than that sort of
revengeful sadism.

~~~
maxlybbert
Here’s a great example (
[https://apnews.com/edd4ebdd7a245e568da69db38aea04db](https://apnews.com/edd4ebdd7a245e568da69db38aea04db)
, third paragraph):

“[The mayor] put on a pair of goggles someone handed him and drank water but
did not leave his spot at the front of the protest and continued to take tear
gas as the demonstration raged — _with protesters lighting a large fire
between protective fencing and the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse_ amid
the pop-pop-pop sounds of the federal agents deploying tear gas and stun
grenades into the crowd.”

The federal officers are officially assigned to protect that courthouse. They
built a fence but people still managed to build a large fire on the wrong side
of the fence. It looks like the officers have a good reason to want the crowd
to disperse, although I’m not sure that it’s a great idea to use tear gas so
close to a fire. Unfortunately, as I understand it, if the crowd refuses to
leave and tear gas has been ruled out, the remaining options are all very
violent.

------
chefkoch
I'm not really sure how this is going to be enforced if the federal agents
cannot be identified?

~~~
stronglikedan
They can be identified by their badges, just like any other law enforcement
officer. They all wear badges with unique badge numbers.

~~~
guerrilla
You missed the part where they have been removing and covering their badges
fairly consistently.

~~~
UI_at_80x24
I'd like to see this codified into law and practice:

As soon as you cover/hide a badge/identification you are no longer acting as
law-enforcement and are deemed a terrorist inciting fear & harm on the public.

~~~
jessaustin
I saw an interview with the mayor a couple of days ago. He ended by throwing a
Molotov cocktail that the interviewer completely ignored: "It would be really
unfortunate if the irregular behavior of these federal agents put them in
harm's way." (My memory is not great so this quote may be a bit more explicit
than the original?) In general, if an unidentified group of armed and
camouflaged ruffians pours out of unmarked vans to menace our neighborhood, we
should shoot them.

~~~
non-entity
I've heard stuff like this a lot, but just dont believe it. The people who are
more likely to be armed arent being targeted. Plus shooting at federal
officers is likely to be a death sentence, both literally and in regards to
sympathy / support for yourself and beliefs.

~~~
jadell
If they are not wearing badges and identification of which agency they are
operating under the authority of, then the laws should be that they are not
legally operating as federal officers. That's the point. I'm allowed (in many
jurisdictions) to defend myself with deadly force if necessary against an
assailant. Without properly identifying themselves as federal agents, they
could be any random person who bought camo and tactical gear at any random gun
shop or military surplus store.

Federal agents should be _required_ to clearly identify themselves as such.

------
ISL
This should _not_ require a court order.

------
entropea
Temporarily?? I could've sworn this was a permanent right of US citizens?

~~~
dragonwriter
The TRO means that there can be actual punishment, fairly swiftly, for
violations, because violations become contempt of court for which the court
can issue civil penalties on a near-immediate basis. All the things that make
holding government agencies and government agents accountable and laborious
are cut through when there is a specific court order and not just general law
in play.

------
blickentwapft
Better start printing thousands of T-shirts saying JOURNALIST.

~~~
ThePowerOfFuet
PRESS.

------
coronadisaster
Dang, did you mess with the ranking of this post?

