Hundreds of journalists are expected to converge on Chicago to cover the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 19-22 – and they must be allowed to do their jobs unimpeded.
The city’s plan to “streamline” mass arrests during the convention, by processing arrestees at a makeshift court at the Area 3 police station at Belmont and Western, does nothing to alleviate the threat mass arrests pose to journalists. The plan, reported by the Sun-Times last week, is supposedly for the arrestees’ convenience: It’ll be easier for them to get home on public transportation that way.
But “catch and release” arrests are never convenient for journalists, or their readers. To state the obvious, reporters can’t report news while detained, whether in a Roscoe Village police station or somewhere else. Nor can they inform the public when dodging police tear gas. When police conduct arrests or crowd dispersal, they must distinguish journalists from lawbreakers.
Officers often don’t realize reporters don’t have to comply with mass dispersal orders. The Department of Justice proclaimed, in its report on Minneapolis police’s handling of protests over George Floyd’s murder, that “Blanket enforcement of dispersal orders and curfews against press violates [the First Amendment] because they foreclose the press from reporting about what happens after the dispersal or curfew is issued, including how police enforce those orders.”
Appellate courts agree. Interfering with journalists who are documenting protests and their aftermath is a form of censorship. Chicago police have engaged in the practice during the unrest in 2020 following the Floyd murder, assaulting numerous journalists for exercising their rights, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
This time, police must allow journalists covering DNC protests to do their jobs freely and safely, even if (especially if) things get out of hand.
Set guidelines, focus on serious lawbreakers
The issue isn’t about putting journalists on a pedestal. The city’s Inspector General is among those who have raised concerns about the need to protect lawful demonstrators. We share those concerns. When journalists aren’t watching, abuses of peaceful protesters are more likely. The public suffers by being uninformed. The only beneficiaries are officials looking to avoid accountability.
Police must establish guidelines for identifying journalists, using pointers like press jackets, badges and equipment. But police also must recognize journalism has changed. As conventional newsrooms shutter, independent journalists fill the void. They have the same constitutional rights, as do student and citizen journalists.
Reporters also must sometimes blend in for safety. Most protesters are respectful of journalists, but some are not. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reported 11 assaults of journalists during June protests in Los Angeles. Similar scenes have played out here.
It may be challenging to distinguish journalists from protesters. But police are required to do so, and the burden is lessened by targeting only lawbreakers — journalists or otherwise — and focusing on serious violations, not petty “gotcha” stuff.
There also must be clear processes for reporting violence against reporters, followed by thorough investigations and prompt release of footage. In the past, journalists haven’t filed complaints because they feared retaliation or believed it was a waste of time. Authorities must change that perception.
In addition to the First Amendment, journalists are protected by Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure. The federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980 bars most searches of journalists’ equipment outright, and Illinois’ reporter’s privilege law protects journalist-source communications. Damaging reporters’ devices is equally problematic.
The repercussions of ignoring press protections include liability, not just bad PR. Groups like the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Society of Professional Journalists stand ready to help even journalists who don’t have a budget for legal expenses pursue their rights.
Authorities here have settled multiple cases arising from press abuses at protests. In Los Angeles, one journalist’s lawsuit recently settled for $700,000. The National Press Photographers Association partnered with law firm Davis Wright Tremaine to sue the NYPD over the handling of George Floyd protests, culminating not only in a financial settlement in 2023 but significant reform and training obligations. Plus, a recent Supreme Court case, Gonzalez v. Trevino, made it easier to sue government officials when they retaliate against First Amendment activity.
A police department that values transparency should want journalists to inform the public. Rather than overreacting to unrest, police can, and should, help ensure a peaceful convention showcasing everything that makes Chicago special — including its rich history of intrepid journalism and vigorous activism.
Seth Stern is the director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment lawyer. Jimena Pinzon is an advocacy intern at FPF, a law student and a journalist.
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox.