Can the police require a “press pass” for access to an area that they have closed to the public (press and non-press alike) for reasons of public safety? Certainly. One can attack the closure as being an inappropriate response to the threat, or one can attack arbitrary and capricious granting of passes, but it seems that the police certainly cannot be required to grant any member of the public access to a closed area merely because of an unsubstantiated claim to being “from the press” – despite the fact that the freedom of the press belongs to everyone.

But equally, if the police are systematically excluding those who are using cameras, operating recording devices, conducting interviews or taking notes, while allowing members of the public who are not doing those things to remain, or if they are demanding a “press pass” in order to do those things, they are now overstepping. If the citizenry broadly has access to a place, then citizen journalists cannot be excluded for the very fact that they are trying to report on what is going on in that place.

And arbitrary granting and denial of press passes based on the perceived likelihood that the reporter will present the police in an unflattering light, or reveal official secrets, is a reflection of the militarization of police forces. It suggests that a reporter who is not thoroughly investigated cannot be trusted not to reveal our movements to the enemy – and defines the very public that the police are sworn to protect and serve as the enemy.  The difference is that real warriors are taught that war is – at least in part – a battle for the hearts and minds of the people of a disputed territory. (Then again, it would appear that our warriors are no longer taught that, either.)

[-] there are three major categories: news organizations, law-enforcement agencies, and event organizers (usually for a specific single affair like a corporate press conference). Each type of card grants different authorizations, thus it is often necessary or desirable for reporters to hold multiple press passes simultaneously.[1]

Therefor, this must pertain to law enforcement agencies. Wikipedia continues: Such passes allow the bearer to cross police or fire lines to report breaking news, or grant access to crime scenes or other restricted areas[2]–though admission may be denied if it would interfere with the duties of emergency personnel. Because of the exceptional dispensation endowed by police press passes, they are issued with discretion–some jurisdictions require an in-person interview with all prospective applicants, complete set of fingerprints, and a background check.[3] Generally, only reporters who cover breaking news are eligible;[2] other journalists (feature writers, editors and editorialists, freelance writers, and bloggers) are not.[3]

So the question should be: Are “Reporters” licensed or hold special I.D.? Here’s a great link that answers that question. Bookmark it, it was hard to find. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june282010/reporter-credentials-tk.php  

“I was surprised that this involved visiting the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police building and standing in a long line with other people who needed official Police ID. Most were not media people, just me. Anyway, there were forms to fill out and actual background information was required. I got the impression that any person with a criminal history probably wouldn’t receive a Las Vegas Metro press ID. Without it you can’t work for one of the TV station newsrooms.”

Thanks for reminding me— it was almost time to renew my membership. (I hope y’all are kicking at least a few bucks their way too.)

Whereas the Occupy protesters *are* their own reporters, and New Media sources — like BoingBoing — are providing multifaceted and deep coverage. Looking at how the Pike lulz photoshops instantly went viral is evidence to me that there is a strong network disseminating this reportage and a large audience receiving it. I also like that the entrenched media and the very people against whom Occupy is protesting just don’t seem to understand this.

Whether this message is getting to grassroots Amurrika is another story. But I think one of Occupy’s objectives is to continue growing in such a way that it simply can’t be ignored. The fact that the national debate on economic disparity and First Amendment rights has grown vastly since the movement began is proof the movement is achieving its wonderfully unstated objectives.

When people ask what Occupy is about, it reminds me hugely of people asking what the Man symbolizes at Burning Man. And yet the faith that there is a tacit understanding of its purpose that also leaves room for individual interpretation *is* its power and appeal.

“Don’t tell me how to do my job and I won’t tell you how to do yours,” she said.

I choose to interpret that statement as meaning “police will no longer require press passes at all, because that would be telling reporters how to do their jobs.”

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always,[1][2] defined as being nonviolent resistance. It is one form of civil resistance. In one view (in India, known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.

Note that in this definition “civil” does not mean, merely, “polite”, nor does it equal “speech.” One disobeys unjust laws. Laws, rules, regulations, etc. that deny one the right to petition (and I broadly construe “petitioning” to mean not only election of representatives, but the direct petition of any leader at any time exigency dictates). Similarly, laws that deny the right to record and to report are unjust.

Therefore, the laws in the U.S. and in local jurisdictions within the U.S. that forbid demonstration within sight of elected officials for “security” reasons, or that require “permits” to do so, or that require any sort of permission to report and publish, are unjust, and must be disobeyed. I urge everyone to do so.

However, “Don’t beat and gas innocent people” is pretty good advice for ANY job.  And, further, I submit that if somebody needs to tell you that, it is entirely possible that that person has a better grasp on how to do your job than you do.

Edit… though they may have gotten the idea from Pink Floyd Lyrics. “how can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat?”

Also: dupe. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/zqAt4gmzQac/nypd-press-credentialling-proc.html