
Why journalists have the right to cover the University of Missouri protests - dankohn1
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/university_of_missouri_protests_first_amendment.php
======
tomcam
It is bizarre and alarming that anyone is questioning the right to free speech
on taxpayer-funded land.

~~~
gozo
If you believe in free speech I don't see how this would be any more bizarre
and alarming doing it on taxpayer-funded land than anywhere else? In fact it
would be more appropriate since freedom of speech primarily protect you from
government intervention.

~~~
sonthonax
Because if it was private land, reporters would not necessarily have the right
to be there.

~~~
gozo
Makes more sense. I though he meant why they were "questioning free speech,
while being on taxpayer-funded land", rather than "questioning the right to
deliver free speech in a public space".

------
gozo
Another example of someone trying to use the constitution to further their own
opinions and thereby undermining the cause they claim to support. In the light
of lobby organizations filming students to shame them online and articles like
this insinuating legal consequences I very much understand the students
distrust of the media.

~~~
tomcam
You are correct. The Constitution is there precisely to allow you, and people
who disagree with you, your opinions.

~~~
gozo
Constantly invoking the constitution as an argument, when the heart of the
matter is that you disagree, is to cry wolf and undermines its status as an
important document. Further it's not a particularly good argument since there
are countless opinions on how to interpret "spirit of the constitution" as
illustrated by the disagreements over different laws.

And since I'm not a US citizen nor in the US, I'm actually not covered by the
constitution.

