Amazon.com Widgets

Should a FOX reporter have been placed in handcuffs for attempting to cover a city meeting?

  • No responses have been submitted.
  • No, pressi s guaranteed freedom

    No, a reporter should not be handcuffed for trying to cover a meeting. If this is, in fact, the full story then a gross violation of rights has occurred. The press are guaranteed freedom so that they can cover important events and expose wrongs that the general public should know about.

  • No, that's totalitarianism.

    We need to make sure that reporters can do their jobs. They need to cover city meetings so that they can inform the public of what happens at them. Any government official or police officer that attempts to prevent this should lose their job. This is something that cannot happen in a democratic country.

  • No, a FOX reporter should not have been handcuffed for a city meeting coverage attempt.

    In my opinion there is absolutely no excuse for the fact that the FOX news reported was handcuffed when he attempted to cover a public meeting in the city of Kinloch, MO. The key work here is "public". Why could the meeting not be captured on video if it was public?

  • A Fox reporter should not have been placed in handcuffs for attempting to cover a meeting

    A Fox reporter should not have been placed in handcuffs for attempting to cover a meeting unless he was committing a crime or about to otherwise disturb the proceedings. Unless and until the first amendment is repealed, even reporters have a right to exercise free speech. The leaders of the city meeting should be ashamed.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.