The Instigator
The_Immortal_Emris
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
TrustmeImlying
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

The media is NOT being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
The_Immortal_Emris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,299 times Debate No: 60655
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

The_Immortal_Emris

Con

Pro suggests the media is not being suppressed in Ferguson in the wake of the shooting of Mike Brown.

First round is for acceptance.

Second round for opening arguments

Third and fourth round for rebuttals and closing.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

Afternoon Immortal

Everyone reading

Media:
The main means of mass communication (especially television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively.

Suppress:
to prevent the dissemination of.
or
to forcibly put an end to.

Law enforcement
An organization or agency that collectively acts to uphold the laws and legislation of a given area.

I accept PRO in that my claim is that the media is not being forcibly prevented by any law enforcement agency in their attempts to disseminate information via any form of medium.

Hopefully this will be an objective and fair assessment of the heated situation in Ferguson, and may help shed some light on those who may not be up to speed on the situation as it evolves.

The floor is CON's and happy reading.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Immortal_Emris

Con

I thank Pro very much for accepting this debate.

Before I begin my arguments, I'd like to preface this by offering some perspective from my point of view.

I am a former crime reporter for a medium sized newspaper in a medium sized southern town with more than 55 percent black population. We have had very similar situations to what has happened in Ferguson. I have seen the way it should be handled, and I have been on the ground covering peaceful protests and angry mobs both.

This is where my passion for the first Amendment comes from. A deep, and heartfelt desire to give the people access to the truth.

So when I see people defend a police crackdown on the media, it hurts my heart. It makes me tremendously sad to see people unwilling to fight for the truth I and other journalists fought so hard to bring them.

On to the arguments!


A: Police "arrested" several reporters, later released them without charges or paperwork.

A.1. Aug 13, Two reporters arrested on private property by police for filming officers

A.2 - Ryan Riley and Wesley Lowery were arrested, and their gear seized from a McDonald's where they had permission to film and relay reports. (1) (2) (3)

Police actively prevented Riley from tweeting about the arrest, until they were forced to release both men.

No paperwork was filed, no arresting officer was named. (both of these are standard protocol for any arrest)(4)

There are several pictures and tweets from the reporters pre and post arrest, but the Ferguson police suppressed both men for nearly an hour, not allowing them to communicate with the public in any way.

Sources:

(1) Interview with Reiley describing the arrest- https://soundcloud.com...

(2) Tweets from Riley and Lowery, following their release - http://news.yahoo.com...

(3)Police arresting Reiley

(4) Politico story on the matter for balance -http://www.politico.com...


B. - Al Jazeera crew shot by teargas, their equipment sezied

B.1 - Aug 14, The crew is well illuminated, and quite obviously media, yet they are attacked by police with teargas. (5)

B.2 - The attack was also captured on camera by a local news crew reporting a school closure. (6)

B.3 - That same news crew was also shot with a beanbag while filming the Al Jazeera crew being attacked. (7)

SOURCES:

(5) The camera crew filmed the attack - http://america.aljazeera.com...;

(6) (7) The angle from the second news crew (listen for the thunk of the beanbag hitting their gear) - http://www.ksdk.com...


C. Police actively threaten to shoot a reporter filming atop a news van. Suppression through intimidation.

C.1 - "Get the F*** out of here, Turn off that light, how dare you, if you turn on that light, you're getting shot with this" (8)

C.2 - "I'll bust your a$$, I'll bust your heard right here," Officer tells Al Jazeera journalist. Threatens to arrest them and take their film. (9)

C.3 - The Intercept reporter Ryan Devereaux, and a German correspondant were shot by rubber bullets and arrested. They were detained so long, the editors of The Intercept wrote an editorial on the fact they could not get in touch with him (10)


Sources:

(8) -

Alternative source if the above video link doesn't work (8) - http://www.vox.com...


(9) - http://america.aljazeera.com...

(10) https://firstlook.org...



D. - Getty Images photographer Scott Olson was arrested, his press tags are clearly visible. His camera is clearly visible. It was daylight.





E. Sports Illustrated’s Robert Klemko, the Telegraph’s Rob Crilly and the Financial Times’ Neil Munshi all arrested in a single night. No charges filed, no arresting officer named. (11) Munsi was handcuffed when the officer noticed he was still filming. This alone, is proof the police are suppressing the media. The below link contains dozens of tweets from individuals who witnessed police threatening jounalists. Including the three arrests detailed above.

SOURCE: (11) http://www.poynter.org...





F. CNN's Don Lemon was broadcasting live from one of the town's designated protest areas when a police officer began shoving him in an attempt to physically force him to leave the area (12)

SOURCE: (12) http://www.rawstory.com...




G. MSNBC's Christopher Hayes threatened with mace. (13)

SOURCE: (13) https://twitter.com...




F. Local reporter with KSDK was shot with a beanbag while filming riot police beat a protester. (14)


SOURCE: (14) http://www.ksdk.com...;



G. Police arrested Antonio French, St. Louis alderman and citizen journalist:

"Then eventually an officer opened my door, pulled me out and arrested me. I asked him why I was being arrested and he said because ‘I didn’t listen,’” French said.

No charges were filed, no paperwork was filed, but he was detained for several hours to prevent him from reporting the truth. (15)

SOURCE: (15) http://www.kmov.com...



H. Matthew Giles, journalism student at New York University was "arrested" no charges, but they took his phone and camera to prevent him from reporting the truth. (16)

SOURCE:(16) https://twitter.com...;



I. Breitbart journalist arrested while walking to a designated media staging area. (17) Her camera and phone were confiscated. The police, hours later apologized, but not before preventing her from doing her job.

SOURCE: (17) http://www.breitbart.com...




J. Frank Hermann of Der Standard was also arrested, I'm sorry I couldn't find an English source. I only know a smattering of German, but I blieve the video speaks for itself (18).

SOURCE: http://www.welt.de...



K. Ansgar Graw, another German correspondent from Die Welt was arrested. That reporter is also mentioned in source (18) So I will not bother providing an additional source.


L. Lukas Hermsmeier was the German reporter arrested alongside Ryan Devereaux who I mentioned above. (19)


SOURCE: (19) http://www.cnn.com...


M. Today, Bilgin #0;a#1;maz of Anadolu Ajansi was also arrested. The suppression continues. sasmaz was wounded by police while covering the protests in Ferguson and remained in detention for 5 hours. During the arrest, they damaged his camera to prevent the evidence from being broadcast. (20)

SOURCE: (20) http://www.aa.com.tr...



There is no doubt the media is being actively targeted by this police force in an attempt to subvert the truth and prevent reporters from exercising their first Amendment freedom.

The active intimidation and suppression of media is egrigious and cannot be denied.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

I'd like to start by presenting some examples of "media suppression":
We could consider locations such as Eritrea, where journalists are simply "assigned" to work and report on specific topics with no editorial freedom. All dissent is met with years in jail, and any foreign correspondents are turned away.

Turkmenistan, where internet access is limited to constrict the flow of unwanted information.

China, where journalists are imposed with restricted access or travel bans if they are deemed "antistate".

Vietnam, where even reporting on specific topics is a crime accompanied by jail time.

Or Belarus, where citizens were denied access to social media in an attempt to conceal civil unrest. (1)

All of these locations have a desire to suppress information leaving and arriving, and do so to keep the scales of control in their favor.

By controlling information, the authorities control the public opinion. By controlling public opinion - you control the people.

Please understand I don't believe that Ferguson PD is capable of internet proxy attacks, satellite scrambling, "assigning stories" to journalists or long term jail sentences for dissent. But other problems arise when comparing the situation in Missouri with these listed above.

HOW are the law enforcement agencies carrying out this suppression?
No concentrated efforts have been made to restrict cellular, internet, or email access in any way.
No recording equipment, documentation, or evidence has been destroyed or unlawfully confiscated.
No journalists, as of August 21st, have been charged with a crime or held without charges for what ANY state in the US considers unreasonable.
One must wonder, exactly what is the police force doing that is considered "suppression of the media"

WHY would law enforcement agencies attempt media suppression?
It's not to hide the shooting that occured on August 9th.
It's not to hide the protests or riots; they've both been happening almost every day since the shooting and are internationally recognized.
It's not to hide police actions, as the FBI is already investigating with much more thoroughness and scrutiny than the media ever will.
So what is my opponent claiming the law enforcement agencies in Ferguson are attempting to conceal?

Speaking of agencies

Who is responsible for these supposed violations of rights?
It's not the local police; they enacted an operational shift only three days after the incident, effectively handing all policing matters over to state authorities. (2)
The National Guard has been involved in assisting in operations. (3)
The FBI has opened an investigation on both the shooting AND the entire department of Ferguson, sending 40 agents to do an investigation - only 2 days after the incident. (4)
These entities have all been in communication and cooperation with one another, the mayor of Ferguson, the governor of Missouri, and the Attorney General of the United States. (5)
No authority involved in the aftermath of this tragedy has the means or desire to prevent the media from reporting the events in Ferguson.
Doing so would only make people angrier, make policing harder and more dangerous, and make their shifts away from home.

The claim that a law enforcement agency is involved in suppression of the media begins to look more and more like a conspiracy, with unrelated agencies either disregarding or participating in unconstitutional acts on a city-wide scale.

What we're seeing in the wake of the tragedy in Ferguson are isolated abuses of authority, confusion among chaos, and tensions on edge. They deserve attention, and require an answer, but in no way indicate there is a widespread attempt to suppress the media.

Much in the same way we shouldn't consider the peaceful protestors to be rioting because of a handful of looters, we shouldn't consider the police being oppressive because a handful of bad encounters.

(1) All information on foreign media suppression can be viewed here: http://cpj.org...
(2) http://www.nytimes.com...
(3) http://www.usatoday.com...
(4) http://stlouis.cbslocal.com...
(5) http://www.stltoday.com...

I hand the reins back to CON, and look forward to reading the argument.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Immortal_Emris

Con

Rebuttal 1: temporary suppression is still suppression

:examples of "media suppression"

These are all examples of successful and complete suppression, but none of these examples demonstrate that the media was not actively experiencing suppression efforts in Ferguson.
The prompt of this debate, was that the media is '"being suppressed" as the act was taking place at the time. This is no longer the case, but it does not change the fact that for several days, the media was actively suppressed in Ferguson.

:"internet proxy attacks,..."
These are all examples of suppression, as are intimidation of journalists, as well as the arrest of journalists, both of which happened in Ferguson.

Rebuttal 2: The methods of suppression
:HOW are the law enforcement agencies carrying out this suppression?

1. By arresting over a dozen journalists who were doing their jobs within their constitutionally protected rights. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

While no charges are filed against them (and no paperwork as well), that does not mean that the media members were not suppressed as a result of their arrest. Even if temporarily.

:No recording equipment, documentation, or evidence has been destroyed or unlawfully confiscated.

This is inaccurate.
2. Several journalists were even injured by police, their equipment was damaged. (9) (10)
They even have a fundraiser to replace the damaged equipment. (13)

3. As I have demonstrated above. Several cameras were confiscated and videos deleted. The Al Jazeera crew's equipment was confiscated for several days, which is why their video of the teargas attack was not released until days after the other TV station's point of view had been shared. (11) (12) (14)

Pro argues that a temporary suppression doesn't count as suppression. The constitution disagrees.

4. The police force is also intimidating journalists.

- "Get the F*** out of here, Turn off that light, how dare you, if you turn on that light, you're getting shot with this" (15)

- "I'll bust your a$$, I'll bust your head right here," Officer tells Al Jazeera journalist. Threatens to arrest them and take their film. (16)

- "I"ll kill you" a police pointing a rifle at civilians says to the civilians. (17)

: No journalists, as of August 21st, have been charged with a crime or held without charges...


Again, inaccurate, dozens have been arrested unconstitutionally. Their ability to report was suppressed during the hours they were detained.

No paperwork on the arrests have been issued, which is illegal, no arresting officer named, no reports filed. All of this is unconstitutional, and an example of media suppression.

: One must wonder, exactly what is the police force doing that is considered "suppression of the media"

Please see the above 17 examples.

Rebuttal 3- the purpose behind the suppression.

1. Pro has already answered this question..

:"By controlling information, the authorities control the public opinion. By controlling public opinion - you control the people."

2. It is clear the police have a vested interest in controlling the perception of their officer and their police force in the eyes of the public. (18) (19)

3. They have a vested interest in assassinating the character of the deceased. (20)

4. They have a vested interest in labeling the protesters as looters, so their concerns and complaints will be dismissed. (21)


Rebuttal 3.1 " The specific points

: It's not to hide the protests or riots; they've both been happening almost every day

The protests have not been happening every day. This statement is proof the media suppression and propaganda efforts by the police force has worked rather well. The past three nights have been peaceful in Ferguson. (22)

: It's not to hide police actions, as the FBI is already investigating with much more thoroughness and scrutiny than the media ever will.

Pro believes that the media scrutiny is unnecessary because the FBI is now investigating, however without the media coverage (and the outrage over unconstitutional media suppression) the FBI would not have become involved, as it took several days before that decision was made.

: So what is my opponent claiming the law enforcement agencies in Ferguson are attempting to conceal?

1. An accurate depiction of the community, of the protesters and of the timeline surrounding the shooting of Brown.

2. They have a specific desire to see their fellow officer protected, and they know an accurate and honest accounting of events is not likely to produce that result.

Rebuttal 4 " Who is responsible?

: It's not the local police; they enacted an operational shift only three days after the incident, effectively handing all policing matters over to state authorities.

1. They handed operation over to the Highway Patrol after several days. The responsibility lies with the Ferguson police for the first three days of suppression, then the Highway patrol for the remaining several days until the National Guard was brought in.

2. Many of the violations against the media have been carried out by the County law enforcement. (23)

"St. Louis County Police were charged with maintaining order. But their militarized response of aggressive tactics and heavy weaponry further angered not only local residents, but also people across the nation..."

: The FBI has opened an investigation on both the shooting AND the entire department of Ferguson, sending 40 agents to do an investigation - only 2 days after the incident.

1. This was in response to the outrage over police suppression of the media

2. Furthermore, an FBI investigation has nothing to do with whether or not the media was actively suppressed by the authorities in Ferguson, which has been illustrated above.

: These entities have all been in communication and cooperation with one another, the mayor of Ferguson, the governor of Missouri, and the Attorney General of the United States.

None of those entities are media. None of this has any bearing on the argument. These are examples of Red Herring arguments.

: No authority involved in the aftermath of this tragedy has the means or desire to prevent the media from reporting the events in Ferguson.

The arrest of over a dozen journalists has already proven they have both the means and the desire to suppress the reports, and prevent the spread of factual information on the ground, at least temporarily, which is enough to get their narrative out there.

: Doing so would only make people angrier,

Which is precisely why the protesters are so angry at being attacked by police.
: make policing harder and more dangerous

It also makes protesting peacefully harder and more dangerous, due to the use of rubber bullets and tear gas to dispel peaceful protesters under the guise of preventing looting.

: The claim that a law enforcement agency is involved in suppression of the media begins to look more and more like a conspiracy"

It"s not a conspiracy, so much as it is the blue code. They protect their own. They protect the officer. They also follow orders. If they have been ordered not to cooperate or allow media to film, they will follow that order.

"Overnight, several journalists reported being detained, threatened or otherwise prevented from covering the unfolding story"" (25)

: What we're seeing in the wake of the tragedy in Ferguson are isolated abuses of authority

Abuses such as authorities unconstitutionally suppressing the media and unconstitutionally attacking and threatening media and protesters.

: They deserve attention, and require an answer, but in no way indicate there is a widespread attempt to suppress the media.

1. Save for the dozens of media members who were actively suppressed. (1-17)
2. The no Fly Zone (26)
3. media being prevented from traveling to protests (27)
4. The active threatening of journalists" lives and safety. (9, 15, 16)

It certainly doesn't seem isolated. It seems concentrated and targeted.

Due to space, sources are in the comments section.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

DAMAGED EQUIPMENT
The owner of the damaged equipment claimed no malicious intent. In the source CON posted he mentions that the crowd scattering damaged his second camera. We have the same amount of destroyed property in this story by both protestors, and officers, yet one is assumed malicious and not the other.

A member of the press that was assaulted by an officer - who was immediately suspended.These events are isolated, and individuals, not agencies, are being hostile towards civilians or media.

CONFISCATED EQUIPMENT
"Several cameras were confiscated and videos deleted. The Al Jazeera crew's equipment was confiscated for several days"
There are no reports of any photos, videos or documentation being taken from journalists.
This is the video of the event occurring, which can be seen here (4) and described below:
1:30 the officers can clearly be seen gently setting two lights on the ground
1:40 two officers carefully point the camera down
1:50 an officer bumps another light pole and holds it while pausing to make sure it wasn't going to fall.
They can then be seen climbing back into their vehicle and moments later approach the crew that just recorded the event. The officers inform the crew they are going to a new location, and don't seem at all agitated and even have their backs to them.

I'd like to point out to everyone reading that the claim my opponent just made was highly dishonest.

"Pro argues that a temporary suppression doesn't count as suppression. The constitution disagrees."
Misleading. Temporary detainment, mistakes, and cases of isolated abuse don't count as the entire body of law enforcement acting to suppress the media writ large.

SPECIFIC INCIDENTS
"Get the F*** out of here, Turn off that light, how dare you, if you turn on that light, you're getting shot with this"

The actual quote "Turn off that light, get down, get the f*** out of here, you keep that light off, or you're getting shot with this, get the f*** outta here, you're in our way!" (5)

Seconds after, another officer is summoned, who makes no attempts to move the crew. Assurances are made that the officer threatening would be brought up to Cpt. Johnson, the man in charge, and the officer speaking with the journalist offers his own name as a reference to the situation.

"I'll bust your a$$"

To continue quoting Ernst, the man who was unreasonably harassed "The vast majority of the officers I met around St. Louis were doing the best they could in a difficult and dangerous situation. But the kind of officer who we encountered - one who uses his authority to bully the public and press simply because he is protected by the law and a gun - gives others a bad name." (6)

He openly states the majority of officers AREN'T attempting to bully the press.

"'I'll kill you' a police pointing a rifle at civilians says to the civilians."

Immediately relieved of duty and suspended indefinitely. This has nothing to do with the media being suppressed and should be dismissed from consideration. (7)

ARRESTED JOURNALISTS
"dozens have been arrested unconstitutionally. Their ability to report was suppressed during the hours they were detained."

Twice CON has said "dozens" and twice CON has said "over a dozen". Only 11 have been arrested according to:

http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.poynter.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://therealnews.com...

Ryan Reilly, Wesley Lowery, Kerry Picket, Scott Olson, Ansgar Graw, Frank Herrmann, a third unnamed, Lukas Hermsmeier and Ryan Devereaux, Alderman, and Bilgin Sasmaz.

"No paperwork on the arrests have been issued."

Please provide a source claiming that no documentation occurred for these arrests.

I submit this for consideration:
https://www.muckrock.com...

POLICE INTENTIONS
"police have a vested interest in controlling the perception of their officer and their police force in the eyes of the public."

By suspending bad officers (7) apologizing for mistakes (9) and marching with protestors (10).

"They have a vested interest in assassinating the character of the deceased"

The robbery video? Media forced the release by "bombing them" with FOIA requests the same day the officers name was forcibly released. (11)

"vested interest in labeling the protesters as looters, so their concerns and complaints will be dismissed."

"This is my neighborhood. You are my family, you are my friends. And I am you. I will stand to protect you. I will protect your right to protest." Cpt. Johnson of the state police. (10)

PROTEST TIMELINE
"The protests have not been happening every day. The past 3 nights have been peaceful in Ferguson"

I said "almost every day" and I would still be right if I hadn't, I wrote that statement on the 19th, 3 days ago. Protests and riots shouldn't be lumped together.

Much like CON is not distinguishing between good and bad cops, the violent and non-violent protestors aren't the same.

"Pro believes that the media scrutiny is unnecessary because the FBI is now investigating"
Incorrect and dubious. I claim that a crackdown doesn't prevent FBI involvement chronologically, as the FBI was involved already.

"as it took several days before that decision was made."
2 days.

"desire to see their fellow officer protected, and they know an accurate and honest accounting of events is not likely to produce that result."

Baseless accusation. prejudice is cried if the same statement was applied in reverse.

"(The FBI investigation) was in response to the outrage over police suppression of the media"

Baseless and faulty. The FBI is investigating the shooting and department. Also contradictory to CONs previous statement, is it several days or 2?

"FBI investigation has nothing to do with whether or not the media was actively suppressed by the authorities in Ferguson"

Unless it's supporting evidence I used in a timeline, for example "X couldn't have been to prevent the FBI since they were already there".

Another CON contradiction:
"FBI investigation was in response to outrage of media suppression"
"FBI investigation has nothing to do with whether or not the media was suppressed."

"None of those entities are media. None of this has any bearing on the argument."

By trying to disregard the fact that multiple agencies are involved, CON attempts to make "law enforcement" appear singular and monolithic. CON committed this fallacy several times to avoid the complications that arise when including thousands of extra people in a conspiracy.

I hope you, dear reader, are having a blast reading long lines of text from strangers.

And I give the floor back to CON, good night, and good luck!

4.http://www.ksdk.com...
5.http://www.vox.com...
6.http://america.aljazeera.com...
7.http://www.cnn.com...
8.http://www.cnn.com...
9.http://www.breitbart.com...
10.http://www.washingtonpost.com...
11.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
12.http://www.slate.com...
Debate Round No. 3
The_Immortal_Emris

Con

A. Damaged Equipment -

:The owner of the damaged equipment claimed no malicious intent.

Pro does not provide any sources regarding who he is referring to, or where this is stated. As such, these claims cannot be verified. This new argument also completely refutes the argument Pro previously made.

B. Pro continues to equate looters with peaceful protesters, which is a skewed perspective. Also, a Red Herring argument.

:We have the same amount of destroyed property in this story by both protestors, and officers

"the same" - this cannot be proven, and is an attempt to play both sides as equally culpable, when the police abuses have been much more severe.

Protesters have not been firing gas rounds into residential backyards. (4) Neither have they been threatening to murder press members and civilians. Still, a Red Herring.

C. :A member of the press that was assaulted by an officer - who was immediately suspended.These events are isolated...

Only following international outrage and days of abuses. And the suspensions are isolated. Many abusing officers have not even been identified yet. (1)

"These officers refused to provide their badge numbers or names or a reason for the order and grew angry when one of the men attempted to take a video."

None of them have been suspended.

Only a small number of officers have been suspended. One who pushed Don Lemon, and proceeded to brag on facebook about how many people he had killed over the years. (2) It was the rant, not his actions against journalists, which brought about his suspension.

D. Confiscated Equipment

: There are no reports of any photos, videos or documentation being taken from journalists.

This is simply untrue. Pro only illustrates the single Al Jazeera crew example, and does not refute the other examples I have provided. Pro also offers a skewed perspective of the events.

D.1 - The raw footage he provides does NOT show the officers returning the equipment as Pro claims. Pro does not provide a time for when the officers are supposed to have done this. The fact is, the equipment was not returned until well after the live shot was over. Effectively preventing and suppressing the spread of information.

D.2 - Pro mistakenly believes the police informed the crew of where they were next going. But that is not the case. The discussion about where people are relocating takes place between two KSDK journalists. at (:50)

D.3 - "At this point, the video shows still photographers gathered around the KSDK crew...one person is heard saying "We're OK here." Another voice says "We don't want you here. Somebody's going to get hurt. We don't want to see you guys get hurt." The KSDK crew says that is the voice of a police officer." (3)

Clearly, Pro has not understood what is going on in the video. Or who is speaking with the officers.

I will not say Pro has been deliberately dishonest, as I believe Pro is just mistaken. This does not change the fact that Pro is blatantly wrong.

D.4 - Pro could not disprove the examples of journalists Bilgin Sasmaz, and Mustafa Hussein having their equipment damaged. (9) (10)

D.5 - A police officer forcefully removed a Vice News Journalist's press badge and screamed that "this doesn't mean $hit!" (5)

While this is a minor incident of damaged equipment, it still conveys the struggle journalists have had trying to bring people the truth.

E. Suppression, even temporary, is suppression.

E.1 - :"Temporary detainment, mistakes, and cases of isolated abuse..."

Again, pro makes my argument for me. Pro admits detainments have occurred. The detainment of media is an unconstitutional violation of their first amendment rights, and causes suppression.

The large number of abuses indicate they are not isolated, but stem from a systemic issue within the regional law enforcement.

E.2 - The officer who threatened to shoot the journalist with the light has not been suspended or named, despite what Pro suggests by claiming the other officer provided his own name. No accountability was demanded of the threatening officer.

E.3 - Pro uses the term "majority" to suggest that a majority is required for a systemic issue to exist. The vast number of first amendment violations suggests there is an overarching desire to suppress honest media coverage.

E.4 -Pro also ended the quote from Ernst before it was over, a somewhat disingenuous argument tactic.

"That kind of police impunity seems to be at the root of the anger and protests we witnessed."(pro's source)

He openly states the law enforcement in Ferguson suffer a systemic problem.

E.5 - "This has nothing to do with the media being suppressed and should be dismissed from consideration"

Pro arbitrarily would like to dismiss this damning evidence which cannot be refuted.

Pro would love to dismiss every single example I have presented as Isolated, yet these all happened within a number of days in the same town, by the same law enforcement bodies. They should all be considered as a part of the systemic problem.

F. ARRESTED JOURNALISTS

F.1 - :Twice CON has said "dozens"

Dozens, including protesters. (6)

F.2 - "Only 11 have been arrested according to:"

Pro uses dated sources and opinion pieces which took data from dated sources:

As of August 20, 17 media persons have been arrested, according to Press Freedom Foundation. (7)

Again, I will not accuse Pro of being blatantly dishonest, only blatantly incorrect. Click the source for a list and links to articles on each arrest.

F.3 :Please provide a source claiming that no documentation occurred for these arrests.

I have already done this. Pro has clearly not read my provided sources. The articles linked in source (7) each state no paperwork was issued. Here are other sources as well. Links in comments (8) (9) (10)

"He was told he'd be held 24 hours on a charge of unlawful assembly, but then he was inexplicably released without bail or any paperwork at 7 a.m" (11)

The muckrock link further proves no records were taken, as arrest reports are made public immediately. By providing this source, Pro proves my argument.

G. - Police Intentions

:By suspending bad officers (7) apologizing for mistakes (9) and marching with protestors (10).

One suspension, a single apology, and the same office who walked was also the one caught on a vine ordering the detention of two journalists. (12)

The police force has a vested interest in message control. These are there efforts. This does not disprove the many examples of suppression.

G.1 - Even on the 19th, the protests had not been violent for a number of days.

G.2 - :I claim that a crackdown doesn't prevent FBI involvement chronologically

Regardless, this is a Red Herring argument, and Pro cannot provide a source which supports these assumptions.

G.3 - : 2 days.

It was actually on the third day, but this is a Red Herring argument.

G.4 - Pro claims the media is dishonest, but none of the reports can be refuted.

G.5 - Pro makes a semantics argument focusing on my use of the word "several" another Red Herring.

G.6 - The FBI investigation was due to outrage over media suppression

G.7 - :Another CON contradiction

Another example of Pro using incomplete quotes to dishonestly represent my argument. The full quote:

"Pro believes that the media scrutiny is unnecessary because the FBI is now investigating, however without the media coverage (and the outrage over unconstitutional media suppression) the FBI would not have become involved"

The second quote illustrated that the focus of the investigation was on the shooting, not media suppression. That does not mean the suppression was not a motivation to instiage the investigation.

G.8 - :CON attempts to make "law enforcement" appear singular and monolithic.

Again Pro attempts to argue that universality is required for suppression to exist. The police force clearly has a systemic issue. Pro cannot refute that reality, and instead chooses to dishonestly represent my position as universally anti-law enforcement, when I am simply pro-first Amendment.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

DAMAGED EQUIPMENT
"Pro does not provide any sources regarding who he is referring to, or where this is stated."

Stated last round:
http://www.gofundme.com...

"continues to equate looters with peaceful protesters... a Red Herring."

Why would we assume maliciousness from one side and not the other? Neither side should be ASSUMED malicious without evidence. By remaining neutral, CON suggests I have taken sides.

"The same (amount of destroyed equipment) - this cannot be proven"

Speaking about the incident of the two damaged cameras, one of which was damaged by an officer, the other by the crowd.

"Protesters have not been firing gas rounds into residential backyards... A red herring"

This has nothing to do with media suppression, the story being discussed, and wasn't brought up until the final round.

SUSPENSIONS
"(Suspensions began) only following international outrage and days of abuses."

http://www.aa.com.tr...

Nothing about the media putting pressure on the department for a suspension. The department representative confirmed the officer's suspension had already been carried out.

"Only a small number of officers have been suspended."
Only a small number have committed acts that require suspension.

CONFISCATED EQUIPMENT
"Pro only illustrates the single Al Jazeera crew example, and does not refute the other examples I have provided."

Quote from CON:

"Several cameras were confiscated and videos deleted."

CON posts 3 sources:
http://www.ksdk.com...
http://www.dailykos.com...
http://www.slate.com...

3 sources - same story.

"The raw footage he provides does NOT show the officers returning the equipment"

Because nothing was seen on video being TAKEN in the first place, no recording journalists mentioned anything being taken, and officers make no effort to obtain the secondary video evidence that would damn them if they had.

"At this point, the video shows photographers gathered around the KSDK crew...one person is heard saying "We're OK here." Another voice says "We don't want you here. Somebody's going to get hurt. We don't want to see you guys get hurt."
The KSDK crew says that is the voice of a police officer."

CON provided a transcript directly supporting my point that the officers made no attempt to harass, threaten, or steal from the journalists to prevent exposure of their supposed crimes, only to get them down the street to their vehicle.

ARRESTS
"A police officer forcefully removed a Vice News Journalist's press badge and screamed that "this doesn't mean $hit!""

There's no new evidence allowed, but:
Just like the 4 that have been suspended, his actions were unreasonable and should be brought up the ranks.

"The detainment of media is an unconstitutional violation of their first amendment rights, and causes suppression."

You misunderstand the constitution if you think temporary detainment is a violation of it, and journalists are given no special distinction based on the 1st amendment.

"The large number of abuses indicate they are not isolated"

In summary of our covered "abuses" they are few and far between considering the sheer number of interactions between officers and citizens.

"Pro arbitrarily would like to dismiss this damning evidence (threat to protestor) which cannot be refuted."

This topic was clearly defined to discuss the media being suppressed by law enforcement. A civilian being threatened by an officer (immediately relieved of duty) has no bearing on this.

"Dozens (of journalists), including protesters."

CON attempts to inflate the number of supporting cases by suggesting that anyone on the streets of Ferguson should be considered "media"

"The articles linked in each (story) state no paperwork was issued. (And) the muckrock link further proves no records were taken, as arrest reports are made public immediately."

Arrest reports are NOT made public immediately, and in a town that doesn't even have cameras in their patrol vehicles it's probably an even slower process. This source is an open request for documents, and a response explaining when to expect said paperwork from the county.

CON has already concluded without evidence that these documents will not be provided in the future.

"(Cpt. Johnson) caught on a vine ordering the detention of two journalists."

The media is not exempt from following lawful orders, and a brief detainment isn't unlawful. They were detained for less than 10 minutes and offered an apology.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com...

FBI
"...a red herring, Pro cannot provide a source which supports these assumptions (that the FBI was NOT involved because of "outrage"

FBI spokeswoman:

"Mimura noted that the FBI would be investigating such a shooting regardless of the public attention."
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com...

(Already provided, #4 of my Round 2 argument)

"It was actually on the third day, but this is a Red Herring argument."

Brown shot on the 9th, FBI involvement on the 11th:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com...

The FBI was getting involved either way, so the law enforcement element had no reason to suppress the media, at least in an attempt to prevent FBI involvement.

The one counterargument by CON was that:

"The FBI investigation was due to outrage over media suppression"

A claim of which is overtly false.

"Pro claims the media is dishonest"

I've made no claims of the media being dishonest.

"Pro makes a semantics argument focusing on my use of the word "several" another Red Herring."

I pointed it out for the continued inconsistency in CON's statements.

The claim "the media is being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson" is a statement that implies that the whole, or the majority, or even a large enough portion of various departments are actively seeking to control the media.

CON was unable to explain why this was happening, as the media isn't revealing any revelations about Ferguson the police were hiding, and the police force doesn't seem concerned with changing viewer's minds in any sense of "propaganda".

CON uses isolated incidents and plays on words to suggest that all citizens are media, and any slight infringement upon a citizen, regardless of lawfulness, is an intentional violation of the 1st amendment to prevent the "truth" from spreading.

CON gives erroneous accounts of property being stolen by police, when they can be clearly seen intact on video.

CON let many of my points stand by dismissing them as fallacy.

And the fallacy of the day was "red herring"

I appreciate this debate; it was much more enjoyable than the guy who kept calling me "retard boy" over and over.

Thanks for reading, and happy voting!
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
Thank you Trust, you are a great sport. I appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic!
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
Congrats on the win, Immortal!
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
It has been reported. Feel free to continue voting on my future debates. I would love to see a pattern emerge. And so would the mods. Be careful.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
My vote is a lie. Apparently. If only I could retract it.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Why the double negative, firstly? I don"t understand the need for it. Both start off with definitions, which were accepted. Since burden of proof was not discussed, I"ll assume it"s shared, or leaning to Pro. Con starts off the debate with a preface, giving the audience an idea of why he"s interested in such a topic. This is a little unnecessary in my opinion, but not anything to take points off for. Con then begins his points by giving examples of media suppression. These were really good, but at times difficult to read because of the links, and "sources" in the middle of the round. For future reference Con, you can post [1] etc at the end of the line, and link your sources at the end of the argument, much like endnotes or footnotes. It"s easier to read and a lot neater. Con, don"t post anything that belongs in the debate, outside the debate, for future reference. I therefore, award conduct to Pro. I don"t think Pro understood the topic of the debate- The media is not being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson. Pro tried to discuss that other places were being suppressed, worse, and why these things were happening in Ferguson but he didn"t prove that the media wasn"t being suppressed by the law enforcement in Ferguson.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
OOPS! Left off one.

(12) - https://mtc.cdn.vine.co...
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
I wonder who will win.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by AngelofDeath 2 years ago
AngelofDeath
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I nearly fell asleep.... whether it's because I'm on cold medicine or because I don't care about what's happening in Ferguson.... you can decide xD Good job to both sides though, for dedicating so much time and effort to this debate which otherwise would not exist or award me much needed sleep.
Vote Placed by LiberalLogic101 2 years ago
LiberalLogic101
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think really the big issue for Pro here is that he has no case... for having no case, he did okay.
Vote Placed by ChristianPunk 2 years ago
ChristianPunk
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Both made good points, but I felt more like Con won a point. I will say that Con should read the context of his words and not twist them or use news sources that take sides.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides put an admirable amount of effort into their arguments. I feel, however, that Pro should have chosen his debate topic more carefully (which seems to be the undoing of arguments). I say this because Con provided sufficient evidence of suppression of media by law enforcement, which Pro would obviously try to refute, but in my mind was unsuccessful in doing. The term "Law enforcement" can also apply to individual officers as well. My vote goes to Con, and I would suggest to Emris to not put sources in the comments section unless part of another discussion. Otherwise, a near-flawless (figuratively speaking of course) argument on Emris' part. Very effective and most successful. Enjoyed reading this debate very much.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: 4:2 points. I think Con has a stronger case, as many examples that Con showed showed individual police suppression of the media. Con backed up all examples with many sources and even images and video. However, Pro's points about the limited extent and that much of this suppression appears to come from individual or groups of policepersons, rather than the entire force in cooperation, are both valid points.
Vote Placed by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con overlooked citations multiple times making claims against Pro that were false. S&G: Con used more persuasive language. Argumentation: Pro had a superior presentation. The reasoning Pro offered was far more inclusive to the reality of the situation and I feel that Con cherry picked as a means to persuade. Sources: While bias rests in the source themselves the bias is about equivalent throughout.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments because the character limit is bogus.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt it was unfair for con to get to put sources in the comment section, so conduct to pro, but otherwise pro never managed to rebut con
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
The_Immortal_EmrisTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Okie doke. FIrst, I'd like to note that this resolution was unnecessarily convoluted. Con does not dodge the BoP merely by assigning themselves the Con posititon, and there's no reason for this double-negative. That said, Pro never actually managed to show that the media WEREN'T being suppressed. Pro initially attempted to use examples to show "worse" suppression elsewhere, which was irrelevant, and attempted to argue that the majority weren't suppressive, but never managed to rebut the suppression that Con brought up. Universality was not required by the resolution, so Pro's defenses fail--thus, arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.