zlacker

IANAL. I've always thought of freedom of press as the right to publish. Is it now expanded to the right to be and go where others cannot lawfully go?

>>cabaal+(OP)
The 1st amendment covers freedom of assembly as well.

> Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Press implies covering events and publishing about them. If that's not convincing enough, they spell it out in right to assemble, anyways. A press corps can assemble to cover events.

>>petroc+72
> Press implies covering events and publishing about them.

I don't think it implies that covering events has some kind of immunity. It's still subject to any general restriction on the assembly. The government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. See https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php

>>cabaal+(OP)
Beyond the first amendment is the 4th estate doctrine, origin ating from British concepts.

While less legally defensible it is much of the reason why the BBC, FCC exist, why we have camera crews embed with troops.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate

>>cabaal+(OP)
This is also my understanding and why I don't agree with people who consider the press a protected class that can refuse to comply when the police delcare an unlawful assembly and order everyone to leave. That doesn't mean the police can act with impunity. It just means that the press are mistaken to think they can seek legal remedy when they are arrested for failing to comply with the order to clear out.