[Public News Service of West Virginia Reporter Daniel Ralph Heyman] has been arrested and charged with "disruption of government services" in the state capitol for "yelling questions" at visiting Health and Human Services secretary Tom Price and White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway.[...] "The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol," the complaint states. It adds Heyman caused a disturbance by "yelling questions at Ms. Conway and Secretary Price."The misdemeanor carries a possible fine of $100 and up to six months in jail.[...] The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia called the charges "outrageous" and said the arrest was "a blatant attempt to chill an independent, free press.""Freedom of the press is being eroded every day, " it said in a statement. "We have a president who calls the media 'fake news' and resists transparency at every turn."The statement said this is a "dangerous time in the country."
[Public News Service of West Virginia Reporter Daniel Ralph Heyman] has been arrested and charged with "disruption of government services" in the state capitol for "yelling questions" at visiting Health and Human Services secretary Tom Price and White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway.
[...] "The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol," the complaint states. It adds Heyman caused a disturbance by "yelling questions at Ms. Conway and Secretary Price."
The misdemeanor carries a possible fine of $100 and up to six months in jail.
[...] The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia called the charges "outrageous" and said the arrest was "a blatant attempt to chill an independent, free press."
"Freedom of the press is being eroded every day, " it said in a statement. "We have a president who calls the media 'fake news' and resists transparency at every turn."
The statement said this is a "dangerous time in the country."
Price and Conway were in West Virginia to discuss opioid addiction in the state, which has the highest drug overdose death rate in the nation.
"Hey man what are you in for?""Yelling.""So were you high?""No.""Come on man you had to be on drugs.""No I wasn't on drugs.""Man I bet those are some good drugs.""I don't know what you're talking about.""Sure man your drugs make you forget you're on drugs!"
Every few years ever since the 2003 Invasion of Iraq when public opinion turned strongly against people of differing opinions.
Why do you hate America so much? Why do you not support the troops?
I do support the troops. What I don't support are the orders given to them by the asshats in charge.
Where's the video, to know whether he was "Yelling press questions" or "actively breaching the secret service agents"?One is constitutionally protected (if you do it in a professional manner and setting), the other is indeed asking for trouble.
People refusing to answer questions is bad, but not a reason to behave like an idiot... Report on the stonewalling, don't get yourself arrested.
> Where's the video, to know whether he was "Yelling press questions" or "actively breaching the secret service agents"?
Even the cops don't dispute that he was yelling questions.In fact, it is weird that they specifically mentioned it in their statement.If he was indeed arrested for "breaching the secret service agents" then his yelling of questions should be immaterial.
Also, since when does the secretary of health have secret service agents?Snowflake, much?
Well, isn't it possible that when any elected or non-elected representative of government whom is engaged in destroying many American's access to affordable healthcare perusing publicly unpopular yet party popular legislative actions and actively avoiding any conversation on the subject with ANY member of the press or public alike that doesn't fit their partisan's or personal belief's world view, there might be more than a few constituents legitimately upset with this representative's representing? And given how scared of the real world these sort of politicians are is it outside the realm of possibility for them to ask for Secret Service protection? Are the costs of such additional protection being added to the total money spent to repeal this law? Doubt it.
Sir, please stop yelling. I'm going to have to taze you. Sir, please stop breaching me.
given how scared of the real world these sort of politicians are is it outside the realm of possibility for them to ask for Secret Service protection?
Yes. Various officials are protected by their various agencies (e.g. FBI agents around the FBI director, Capital Police for US Representatives, US Marshals for judges, park rangers around the secretary of interior.) Only the Sec. of Treasure, POTUS, VPOTUS and family are protected by the Secret Service.
Guy is a blogger with a poorly designed website making grandiose claims. USA Today willingly falls hook line and sinker for his act, but while "Public News Service" might sound like it is vaguely related to NPR, which is obviously intentional, and thus gets a pass as fellow members of the Blue Checkmark Mafia, it is just a front group for crazy.
But it doesn't matter because we are long past the point where anyone thinks 'journalist' is some special breed who gets to violate the norms of civilized behavior. Sorry, if I yelled at Mrs. Conway and Sec Price like that, if I were such an asshole the Secret Service had to bounce me, it is highly probable I'd see the inside of the bars in a cell for a bit. So why shouldn't this asshole? Discuss.
Guy is a blogger with a poorly designed website making grandiose claims.
Well, the Public News Service of West Virginia has been around for 20 years and the website seems as good as most.
because we are long past the point where anyone thinks 'journalist' is some special breed who gets to violate the norms of civilized behavior.
They have to get their jobs done, and having a government which tries to thwart them and invalidate them makes that difficult.
How about this, since you want to discuss: The reporter was mildly aggressive when dealing with dishonest government representatives.
The actual website looks like it was designed twenty years ago but only claims 2007 for a start. You didn't think I posted without doing a quick Google search? You must be new around here. :)
They have to get their jobs done...
Their need isn't an enforceable demand on anyone else, they can behave like civilized people or be treated as the filthy animals they seem to be. We have no journalists and it is time everyone accepted that. For them journalism is not a profession, it is merely a tactic.
The reporter was mildly aggressive when dealing with dishonest government representatives.
The aggression is apparently (assuming video doesn't come out with a different set of facts) a fact, the dishonest is an assertion without evidence. You might want to learn the difference. Price hasn't even been in office long enough to support such a claim, especially since you don't (and won't) provide any evidence other than your own rage. You lost, suck it up buttercup.
It is like the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" idiocy. It has been about six months now and when questioned everyone in any position of power on the Left admits there is no evidence but instantly goes for the "There is as yet no evidence, which is why we must investigate, we must have a special prosecutor." Sorry, doesn't work that way, we don't do "Prosecute now, evidence later." Find some evidence or shut the hell up.
The actual website looks like it was designed twenty years ago but only claims 2007 for a start. You didn't think I posted without doing a quick Google search? You must be new around here. :)
I'm not new around here. That's why it was no surprise to me that your "quick google search" was bogus as shit.The West Virginia bureau of the Public News Service was launched in 2007. The organization itself is 20 years old as the banner on their website says. Their website also says:
Last year the Public News Service produced over 4,000 stories featuring multiplatform public interest content that was picked up and re-distributed 100s of 1,000s of times on websites, local print outlets, radio and TV stations, plus on mobile devices. 1,000s of other websites and mobile devices. Nationally, an average of 60 outlets used each story.http://www.publicnewsservice.org/about/mission.php [publicnewsservice.org]
Currently, tens of thousands of media outlets receive our content and more than 8,000 nationally are regularly using our stories, reaching a combined national weekly audience of Over 40 Million....we manage independent news services in 36 states.
> We have no journalists and it is time everyone accepted that.
Says who?Freelance journalists have always existed. They used to publish in papers, now they can publish online.The clowns on TV are not doing journalism, but that doesn't mean that no person ever does. You constitutional don't need a card to be a journalist.
> we don't do "Prosecute now, evidence later." Find some evidence or shut the hell up
Tell that to the 7 panels which investigated Benghazi after the first two said they didn't find any evidence...
The Republican-controlled Congress is "investigating" Russian interference in the 2016 US election. While most R members toe the line and ask useless questions to pass the time, they haven't killed the panel or stopped the subpoenas...Whether they're looking for ammo against Trump (they'd like Pence better), worry about their next campaign being hacked, or can't properly bury the whole thing without looking extra bad, it's still not a liberal conspiracy when Hillary-killer Comey and the House and Senate Republicans are the one running the investigation.
"Russia! Russia! Russia!" idiocy.
It is hard to keep an investigation when every time is picks up steam, another person gets fired by the people being investigated.
Boot stomping fascist rubber stamping government abuse. Awesome job, keep it up. Or better yet, retire early to an island without modern communications and save us from your bullshit.
Trump's war on the media is finally resulting in some actual scary abuse. He was YELLING sir, lock him up he hurt my feewings!
You didn't think I posted without doing a quick Google search? You must be new around here.
I've been here since very near the beginning and not doing a Google search has never stopped you from spewing nonsense before.
Plugging post-fact search terms into Google and finding alt-right fake news websites to "confirm" your claims is NOT a proper Google search.
I need to point out how we essentially attempt to say the same thing, but your post is accusatory, condescending and confrontational...
Ah, that's much simpler. Thank you for explaining.
I've been trying to figure out this whole time whether we have any witnesses or video footage to corroborate the administration's version of events, but I see now that such things aren't necessary.
He was arrested, therefore he did something wrong. Q.E.D.
Since when do the authorities ever willingly film themselves interacting with the public?
Politicians pretty conventionally do, up until January 2017, for some reason.
Well presumably both sides have video,
Why do you presume that?The guy wrote news articles, he didn't produce video segments.And the secret service don't regularly wear bodycams.
I don't know what exactly happened here until we see some footage, but claiming the guy is merely a "blogger" is nonsense.
while "Public News Service" might sound like it is vaguely related to NPR, which is obviously intentional, and thus gets a pass as fellow members of the Blue Checkmark Mafia, it is just a front group for crazy.
Uh, no. Here's the main website [publicnewsservice.org] of this 20-year-old organization. In another post you assert a start-date of 2007, but that's only for the West Virginia branch of this national news outlet. There are some poor web design issues, but have a look here [publicnewsservice.org]. It's a network of state-based news services in 37 states, providing stories to over 8000 media outlets, and that link contains the following info: "In 2016, Public News Service produced 4,682 news stories which ran, conservatively, over 140,732 times on 3,818 radio stations, 1,089 print outlets and 201 television stations...."
You ever heard of American Public Media [americanpublicmedia.org] or maybe Public Radio International [pri.org]? They're also news outlets that produce programming and stories for distribution on things like NPR. I don't know much about Public News Service, but it sounds like a smaller player in this sort of thing which has focused on local state-based organizations to generate news content. I haven't really bothered to investigate this thoroughly, but it sounds like they distribute news stories mostly to local radio stations and local newspapers (and at cheaper rates than big services like AP and Reuters).
As for "public" in the name, it sounds like their model is some sort of unusual democratic thing where members can choose to fund specific news beats (which could be specific states/regions or specific topics), and that shapes the kind of stories they do. It does appear to slant "progressive" in its coverage, but lots of news outlets slant one way or another these days.
In any case, it's clearly not a huge organization, but it's not a random "blogger" either.
So we don't like mainstream news media because they are too cozy with the government and are only mouthpieces. Check.
And we don't like independent news sources like bloggers because... um... their website looks old? And... err... they have to yell their questions because they are kept away from their subjects by a scrum of Secret Service agents? Check.
I guess if I want the news in DC, I should just pop down there myself and ask Mr. Trump what's up.
You might get a faster response if you tweet @realDonaldTrump. He's very honest, the most honest person I know. He wouldn't... I mean, come on. Mr. Trump is a good guy. A very, very good guy. He'll respond to all of your questions, all of them. Believe me, all of them. He's very, very on top of things, on top of a lot of things. Mr. Trump is absolutely the most honest guy, he's the best guy, absolutely fantastic. Believe me, he's the best.
1) First amendment is not limited to some set of "official" reporters.
2) The Gov't knows that the best way to eliminate rights for all people, is to start with the ones people generally despise. Our domestic mass surveillance system is based on making sure a purse snatcher/stalker did his year (or whatever) in jail rather then get off on a technicality. As it turns out, those "technicalities" are the difference between a Constitutional Republic/Democracy, and straight up tyranny. But all people ever see is the asshole in the first case, and after that, it's done and over for everyone eventually.
Well, if it's OK to laud the guy that did the "expose" on ACORN, then why the hate for this guy? Shouldn't we favor independent citizen journalists asking hard, inconvenient questions of the high and mighty? We all know the mainstream media have no interest in doing that at all.
There is a lamentable element of attention-seeking at that level, but at the same time do the stuffed shirt faux-journalists on TV do any different? They are all narcissists; it's practically in the job description.
> Sorry, if I yelled at Mrs. Conway and Sec Price [...] it is highly probable I'd see the inside of the bars in a cell for a bit. So why shouldn't this asshole?
Because freedom. Specifically, freedom of speech includes the freedom to yell. Note the word "or" in this passage, distinguishing it from "freedom of the press":
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 whole question is: at what point does the Secret Service "have to intervene" ?
Is it when the man is physically breaching established boundaries in space, or is it when his voice is reaching Mrs. Conway and Mr. Price at an audible, understandable volume? Interestingly, what is the overlap between the two, if any?
...people trying to fight back, being silenced by the state. We need to keep pushing harder before this becomes even MORE normalized than it is in the early days of Der Trumpenfurher.
Unfortunately, this has been normalized for quite a while now. I can still remember the good old days when Presidents would regularly show up at press conferences to answer questions. Any question that reporters had on their minds was fair game. Back then, it was considered an important part of keeping the President and the rest of his Administration honest. (Yeah, I know, that notion seems quaint and even downright silly now.) Those days are rapidly fading into the mists of time.
Just a reminder: "free speech zones"
aggressively breaching the secret service agents
Er...I don't think that word works the way you think it does.
breach: verb: 2. make a gap in and break through (a wall, barrier, or defense).
One does not breach multiple things. You breach a single barrier.
Unless the guy had a shotgun and was individually breaching each agent's torso...
Lets Hear it for the Pedant!
My pedant he don't talk sweetHe ain't got much to sayBut he posts crap, posts crap, posts crapI know that he posts crap anyway!!!
awwww, pouh liddle tango got his feelfeels hurt!
"They breached the multiple defences of the castle" seems like correct English to me and could include the moat, the outer wall and the keep, so multiple things.
Yeah but you explicitly put the word "multiple" in that.
That's not the issue. The sentence is still perfectly good English without "multiple."
That sentence makes sense because one understands implicitly that the "defences" are barriers, and each is breached.
The problem is more basic -- in idiomatic English, we don't generally "breach" persons. We breach barriers -- either inanimate objects that in common use imply a barrier (e.g., wall) OR abstract things that are explicitly identified as a barrier (e.g., "line of X").
A collection of persons can constitute a defensive "line" or "barrier" or whatever that can be breached. If a ninja is standing in my way, and I fight my way past him, I didn't "breach the ninja," nor would I "breach the ninjas" if there were more than one. That's just not idiomatic English. But I could perhaps "breach the protective line of ninjas."
The issue isn't singular vs. plural. It's the type of object the verb takes.
The thing which caught my eye was: "The misdemeanor carries a possible fine of $100 and up to six months in jail."
Really? 6 months in jail is roughly equivalent to $100? I would have assumed the order of magnitude would be more like "a fine of $5000 and up to six months in jail."
I can't help but wonder if an old law not inflation adjusted, or if this is a "laws are only for the poor."
Is the concept of "and" too difficult for you to understand?
"The defendant was sentenced to three titty twisters and a beheading."
It would still make more sense if the two things were of comparable severity.
The pharase up to includes the number zero. Don't tell me you rush out to every bedding and mattress store every weekend, taken in by their "Save Up To 90%" sales ads!
How is this in any way relevant to the conversation?
Not OP AC. Legalese, unlike common language, is more like programming language. The "and" here is not the "and" we use normally, but specifies two different types of penalties as possible punishment. What it really means is that you can be fined monetarily and/or incarcerated.
The left side of "and' specifies the maximum monetary amount of punishment. The right side of "and" specifies the maximum amount of penitentiary punishment. A judge is given discretionary power to decide which mixture and how much of a mixture is good for the punishment.
The imbalance in $100 and 6-months of jail term is there to show judge the intent of the law - which is that the punishment ought to contain more of imprisonment and it also hints that the crime ought not to be considered a misdemeanor.
Your example doesn't work because your use of "and" uses same type of punishment on both sides. That's not legalese and that's why there is no law that says that.
So "and" doesn't really mean "and" in legalese. This is why people don't like lawyers :P
Yeah it is more like 'or' while actual or is more like 'xor'.
Yeah, that's another thing most people don't notice - or vs xor. Programming bitmasks :)
It was wrong for Comey to editorialize about Clinton when he determined charges weren't warranted;ANDIt was wrong for Trump to fire someone who was investigating him.
I think so!
Yeah, but I mean, put someone in jail for five years, and hit them with a real fine, sure.
But put them in jail for five years and fine them a hundred bucks? Why even bother? is there some class of criminals for whom a 5-year sentence is no real deterrent, but adding a $100 fine will put the fear in 'em?
6 month in jail is essentially a $20000 fine for the taxpayers, and therefore probably a $200 campaign donation to the tough-on-crime Party.
Or is the kickback up to 2%? I didn't get the latest bribery brochure...
Folks could start throwing 'journalists' into woodchippers and I wouldn't bat an eye, Niemoller be damned.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are a few users on this site who are very capable of rational thought, yet they push agendas of tyranny in an attempt to normalize unacceptable behaviors. Jmorris and Khallow are the two most obvious trolls. VLM could just be mildly insane. The rest I think are just old codgers and those with some propaganda still floating around their melons, not people actively trying to subvert what little democracy we have left.
PS: Jmorris can you hook me up with your sister? I hear she's hot and might want a visa to the US so she isn't followed around by your creepy coworkers all the time! Don't worry, I'm not like Trump and won't "grab her by the pussy."
No, no no. Didn't you get the memo? The correct solution is to give them a nice helicopter ride [crypto.fashion].