video that showed University of Missouri protesters restricting a student photographer’s access to a public area of campus on Monday has ignited discussions about press freedom.
Tim Tai, a student photographer on freelance assignment for ESPN, was trying to take photos of a small tent city that protesters had created on a campus quad. Concerned Student 1950, an activist group that formed to push for increased awareness and action around racial issues on campus, did not want reporters near the encampment.
Protesters blocked Mr. Tai’s view and argued with him, eventually pushing him away. At one point, they chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go.”
“I am documenting this for a national news organization,” Mr. Tai told the protesters, adding that “the First Amendment protects your right to be here and mine.”
The protesters accused him of acting unethically and disregarding their requests for privacy.
“What is so hard about respecting our wishes?” one protester asked.
“Because I have a job to do,” Mr. Tai answered. That elicited a retort: “We don’t care about your job.”
the government wasn't preventing Tai from his freedom of the press
other private citizens were blocking him
so was his freedom of speech restricted by them or was this just "consequences"?
I mean, after all, only the government can infringe on your right to free speech\press right?
So if you are in a public place and muscle is called to remove you...it is just consequences? ---