This is about freedom of speech and the information necessary to secure it regardless the scandalous or not topic. California took up the issue because of the film making business within it's economy. These are primarily civil suits that are filed to prevent the "assaultive" behavior of independent journalists when seeking pictures.
The photographer was ticketed for running a red light. That is a dangerous citation and he should never have gone that far. He could have caused his injury or worse or others. It was foolhearty and he deserved the citation. But, to bar an entire news network from reporting on the trial of Rittenhouse basically unrelated to the independent journalist is just wrong. That is lumping all journalists that work with MSNBC into one category and it is not correct to do so.
There are people that watch and listen to MSNBC on a regular basis. How are they to get their news? How are they going to know about the jury's outcome in a verdict? People can be very loyal to news reporting media. They get used to listening to their favorite anchor. In slicing and dicing up the pool of journalists by a judge, MSNBC is put at a disadvantage. That effects a lot of things, including the advertisers that will be seen on that nework, hence, effecting the viability of the network itself. What does that do to the Americans that rely on MSNBC for their news?
I don't know what the conduct of the journalist would have been if he had caught up with the bus and was able to photograph or interact with the jurors, but, that is a different issue. That could be seen as interfering with a jury deliberations. Whoever spoke to him if there was an interaction would be taken off the jury and another juror put in that person's place. But, nothing like that occurred. For all we know the independent journalist may have simply photographed the bus with people leaving it. I don't think that is harmful.
...California passed a law in 1998 (click here) designed to protect public persons from intrusive conduct by paparazzi. California Civil Code section 1708.8 prohibits constructive invasions of privacy, defined as follows:
“A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.”
In 2006 the California legislature amended the law to provide that those who face such invasions of privacy can sue the paparazzi for “three times the amount of any general or special damages” caused by their conduct. Given the astronomically high-dollar demand for photos of celebrities, it is likely that the legislation will be tested in the courts in the near future with cases involving a charged paparazzo....
November 18, 2021
By Amika Kim Constantino
“I have instructed that nobody from MSNBC news be permitted in this building for the duration of this trial,” Judge Bruce Schroeder said during a hearing.
“This is a very serious matter, and I don’t know what the ultimate truth of it is, but absolutely it would go without much thinking that someone who is following a jury bus, that is a very ... that is an extremely serious matter and will be referred to the proper authorities for further action,” the judge continued.
Schroeder said the man who allegedly followed the bus identified himself as James J. Morrison and claimed he was a producer for NBC News employed by MSNBC....
