For Upcoming Conventions, Secret Service Aims to Handcuff First Amendment
Published on
Monday, May 09, 2016
by
We Meant Well
For Upcoming Conventions, Secret Service Aims to Handcuff First Amendment
by
Peter Van Buren
'The United States Secret Service, in the name of security, is for the first
time in our Republic's history running background checks on thousands of
journalists who plan to report from this summer's Republican and Democratic
Party nominating conventions.'
Thomas Jefferson said that an informed citizenry is critical to a democracy,
and with that as a cornerstone the Founders wrote freedom of the press into
the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The most basic of ideas at play is that the government should in no way be
allowed to control what information the press can report to the people, and
cannot place restrictions on journalists. One of the principal
characteristics of any fascist state is the control of information, and thus
the press is always seen as a check on government power that needs to be
stomped on. Ask any surviving journalist in North Korea, or Saudi Arabia.
And so it is with terror we learn the United States Secret Service, in the
name of security, is for the first time in our Republic's history running
background checks on thousands of journalists who plan to report from this
summer's Republican and Democratic Party nominating conventions.
Journalists who don't pass the security screening process, for which of
course there are no publicly-stated criteria and which has no system of
appeal, will be denied credentials to cover the GOP convention in Cleveland,
and the Democrats' in Philadelphia. As the Daily Beast writes, this is the
government deciding who can and can't be a journalist, and through that
process, heavily influencing what will be reported. Happytime government
stenographers from CNN? Step right in, sir. Investigative, real journalists
from The Intercept? Um, maybe not. Will a journalist from an "un-American"
news source such as The Daily Worker be denied simply based on affiliation?
Oh, the issues are many.
For example, security clearances are typically denied to persons with an
arrest record. Will that also apply to journalists who have been arrested in
protest situations while exercising one or more of their First Amendment
rights? Drug use is also often a negative indicator for a security
clearance, so does that mean a person busted for a loose joint in college
may not report from inside the convention hall?
The Secret Service denies that a protest arrest will lead to a denial,
though admits that arrests for assault, or domestic violence, charges could.
At issue is that such arrests can cover a very broad spectrum of behavior,
determined at a very local level. For example, imagine an African-American
falsely charged with assault in some mean Texas backwater. Note also, as in
most security clearance processes, the standard is an arrest, not
necessarily a conviction.
Obtaining security clearances also involves the "voluntary" turning over of
personal information to the government, to often include associations,
employment history, professional affiliations, fingerprints, financials and
the like. If a journalist wishes not to hand over that information to the
Secret Service, does that automatically bar him/her from playing his
mandated role of informing the public? Apparently it does.
There is also the question of control of all that personal information. The
Secret Services states on its website that it has a contract with the Ardian
Group, a private contractor, "to capture that Personally Identifiable
Information for credentialing production" (though the Service itself makes
the actual yes or no decision to allow access.)
In a widely distributed "Dear Colleagues" letter, John Stanton, Washington
bureau chief of BuzzFeed, asked the capper question: "Should the Secret
Service have jurisdiction over the First Amendment?"
C 2015 Peter Van Buren
Peter Van Buren
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Monday, May 9, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Election 2016
. Break Free 2016
. Bernie Sanders
. Hillary Clinton
. Donald Trump
. Panama Papers
For Upcoming Conventions, Secret Service Aims to Handcuff First Amendment
Published on
Monday, May 09, 2016
by
We Meant Well
For Upcoming Conventions, Secret Service Aims to Handcuff First Amendment
by
Peter Van Buren
. 7 Comments
.
. 'The United States Secret Service, in the name of security, is for
the first time in our Republic's history running background checks on
thousands of journalists who plan to report from this summer's Republican
and Democratic Party nominating conventions.'
. Thomas Jefferson said that an informed citizenry is critical to a
democracy, and with that as a cornerstone the Founders wrote freedom of the
press into the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The most basic of ideas at play is that the government should in no way be
allowed to control what information the press can report to the people, and
cannot place restrictions on journalists. One of the principal
characteristics of any fascist state is the control of information, and thus
the press is always seen as a check on government power that needs to be
stomped on. Ask any surviving journalist in North Korea, or Saudi Arabia.
And so it is with terror we learn the United States Secret Service, in the
name of security, is for the first time in our Republic's history running
background checks on thousands of journalists who plan to report from this
summer's Republican and Democratic Party nominating conventions.
. Journalists who don't pass the security screening process, for which
of course there are no publicly-stated criteria and which has no system of
appeal, will be denied credentials to cover the GOP convention in Cleveland,
and the Democrats' in Philadelphia. As the Daily Beast writes, this is the
government deciding who can and can't be a journalist, and through that
process, heavily influencing what will be reported. Happytime government
stenographers from CNN? Step right in, sir. Investigative, real journalists
from The Intercept? Um, maybe not. Will a journalist from an "un-American"
news source such as The Daily Worker be denied simply based on affiliation?
. Oh, the issues are many.
. For example, security clearances are typically denied to persons
with an arrest record. Will that also apply to journalists who have been
arrested in protest situations while exercising one or more of their First
Amendment rights? Drug use is also often a negative indicator for a security
clearance, so does that mean a person busted for a loose joint in college
may not report from inside the convention hall?
The Secret Service denies that a protest arrest will lead to a denial,
though admits that arrests for assault, or domestic violence, charges could.
At issue is that such arrests can cover a very broad spectrum of behavior,
determined at a very local level. For example, imagine an African-American
falsely charged with assault in some mean Texas backwater. Note also, as in
most security clearance processes, the standard is an arrest, not
necessarily a conviction.
Obtaining security clearances also involves the "voluntary" turning over of
personal information to the government, to often include associations,
employment history, professional affiliations, fingerprints, financials and
the like. If a journalist wishes not to hand over that information to the
Secret Service, does that automatically bar him/her from playing his
mandated role of informing the public? Apparently it does.
There is also the question of control of all that personal information. The
Secret Services states on its website that it has a contract with the Ardian
Group, a private contractor, "to capture that Personally Identifiable
Information for credentialing production" (though the Service itself makes
the actual yes or no decision to allow access.)
In a widely distributed "Dear Colleagues" letter, John Stanton, Washington
bureau chief of BuzzFeed, asked the capper question: "Should the Secret
Service have jurisdiction over the First Amendment?"
C 2015 Peter Van Buren
