Reporters Convicted of 'Trespass' for Doing Their Jobs
The guilty verdict came the same day the Justice Department blasted Minneapolis for harassing the press.

The arrest of people reporting news should raise eyebrows, especially when they're covering the conduct of police and other agents of the state. The stakes increase when those journalists aren't even allowed to raise the First Amendment as a defense. Such is the case after the widely condemned conviction for trespassing of two reporters in Asheville, North Carolina, while they covered police clearing a homeless encampment in a public park.
When Monitoring Cops is a Crime
"On Friday, June 16, Buncombe County District Attorney Todd Williams confirmed a Superior Court jury found Asheville Blade journalists Matilda Bliss and Veronica Coit guilty of misdemeanor second-degree trespass from an incident back in December 2021," reports local ABC News affiliate WLOS. "The two journalists were arrested while covering a police sweep of a homeless encampment at Aston Park and the protest that followed on Christmas night in 2021. The basis for their arrests was that the park closed at 10 p.m., so Bliss and Coit were charged with trespassing."
This was actually the second trial in the case after Bliss and Coit were earlier found guilty by Judge J. Calvin Hill who dismissed the importance of journalism to the circumstances at hand. The defendants immediately appealed to a jury trial, resulting in the June 16 verdict.
"Officers are not entitled to operate without press and public scrutiny just because it's dark out," responded Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "The Constitution requires that journalists be given sufficient access to public land to report the news, no matter the time."
"The two journalists should never have been on trial," agreed Katherine Jacobsen of the Committee to Protect Journalists. "They were performing a public service and recording police activity. Their conviction is a blatant violation of their First Amendment rights, and their convictions set an unsettling precedent for journalists in Asheville and the nation."
The Feds May Have Something to Say
Ironically, the same day Bliss and Coit were found guilty of trespass for covering police conduct, the U.S. Justice Department criticized Minneapolis for similar violations of press freedom.
"The First Amendment requires that any restrictions on when, where, and how reporters gather information 'leave open ample alternative channels' for gathering the news," the Investigation of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department notes in part. "Blanket enforcement of dispersal orders and curfews against press violates this principle because they foreclose the press from reporting about what happens after the dispersal or curfew is issued, including how police enforce those orders."
That report was issued by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney's Office District of Minnesota Civil Division as a follow-up to the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis cop and the resulting protests and riots.
Police told the court they knew that the defendants were acting as journalists at the park—Bliss, at least, had a press badge. In court, Lt. Michael McClanahan dismissed the relevance of that role. Judge Tommy Davis specifically precluded the jury from considering the First Amendment as a defense for the reporters' presence in the park. That may well leave ample ground for Coit and Bliss to appeal since the Justice Department report suggests there is plenty of room for higher courts to decide quite differently.
Arrest as Retaliation?
Defense attorney Ben Scales argued that police and District Attorney Todd Williams acted out of hostility towards the defendants and the Asheville Blade, the publication they represent. The Blade has not only long been critical of police, it is a self-described "leftist local news co-op" where the staff sport enough dyed hair and pronouns of choice to set a hard political and cultural divide between themselves and most law enforcement. Defendant Bliss is a trans woman whose treatment by police regarding gender status was an additional issue during the trial.
"The Asheville Police Department's hostility to journalists — or anyone monitoring them — is well-documented," the Blade charged in a response to the guilty verdicts. "In an official September 2020 city survey APD officers listed 'no scrutiny from media' and 'knowing your decisions will not be scrutinized' as top priorities. After Blade reporters documented a similar April 2021 raid on an Aston Park houseless camp and criticized the police in our coverage, APD commanders and high-level city officials forwarded around an email declaring our organization something to 'fight back' against."
Defense attorney Scales also has a past history with District Attorney Williams. Running on a platform that included not prosecuting nonviolent drug offenses, he challenged the incumbent in 2018 for the Democratic nomination, losing with 47 percent of the vote to Williams's 53 percent.
After their arrest, Coit and Bliss were forced to surrender their phones to the police for searches under warrant. Scales has raised that as an additional issue, since it potentially violates North Carolina's quarter-century-old shield law which broadly protects those engaged in gathering news from efforts to force them to turn over information to the authorities.
"The North Carolina shield law is among the two strongest laws of its kind in the country—only Nevada's unqualified, 'absolute' reporter's privilege is stronger," according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Separately, the ACLU of North Carolina is challenging Asheville for flat-out banning people who run afoul of the authorities, including Bliss and Coit, from its parks.
"The lawsuit alleges that the Park Ban Policy and the bans issued to Plaintiffs violate their due process rights by taking away their access to public parks and their ability to conduct their job responsibilities without meaningful notice or hearing," the organization announced in April. "The bans also impinge on Plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment right to assembly. "
Watching the Cops Helps Us All
Of course, the convictions of two Asheville Blade journalists arrested while covering the clearing of a homeless encampment comes as such pop-up slums and their associated problems have become concerns in many cities around the country. But while public fatigue with street people may limit sympathy for them and their supporters, people have the right to monitor and report on police conduct, and they serve an important purpose in doing so.
"Coit and Bliss have already filed a notice of appeal," notes the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "The appellate court will review, among other evidence, body camera footage showing that police arrested the journalists so that they would not be able to record the evictions."
They may not like it, but authorities behave better when they know members of the public have the right to keep an eye on them.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hobos ruin everything.
Easily start receiving more than $600 every single day from home in your part time. i made $18781 from this job in my spare time afte my college. easy to do job and its regular income are awesome. no skills needed to do this job all you need to know is how to copy and paste stuff online. join this today by follow details on this page.
.
.
Apply Now Here—————————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
An easy and quick way to make money online by working part-time and earning an additional $15,000 or more. by working in my spare time in 1ce85 In my previous month (bgr-03), I made $17250, and this job has made me very happy. You can try this right now by following the instructions here
.
.
.
Check Profile______ Onlineclickweb.com
"The two journalists were arrested while covering a police sweep of a homeless encampment at Aston Park and the protest that followed on Christmas night in 2021. The basis for their arrests was that the park closed at 10 p.m., so Bliss and Coit were charged with trespassing."
In other words, they were guilty, and now they're fuming because, as journalists, they didn't get a special dispensation.
They should have thrown the book at them just for being entitled asswipes.
Ok, but did they arrest the hobos as well?
Isn't that what the sweep was, removing the homeless? So yes.
Did they charge them all with trespassing or just kick them out?
Probably the latter due to that stupid Ninth Circus ruling.
They tend to charge and arrest those who refuse to leave. At least in most stories I've read.
Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I've started averaging 15k a month... The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)>>> https://www.Salarybiz.com
There were no homeless people in the park. This story leaves out that there were homeless activists. And they moved to the sidewalk and yelled whatever they wanted at the cops. The only people who were arrested were those that stayed past 10:30. It's all on the body cam footage released by the city
Utterly irrelevant. The issue is that cops want to operate without scrutiny and there by with no chance of accountability.
You're only saying that because it's a leftist outfit. If it was Babylon Bee you'd be crying about how unfair it is.
If police are doing something on public property, people (not limited to professional journalists) should be able to observe. And although not constitutionally required, allowing special access to the press is a long established convention and I don't think that's a bad thing.
The question becomes “what is press?”
Can it be some guy who writes that he saw something on facebook? Or someone employed by a newspaper or television show?
My take: The press is, literally, anyone who can publish something. This bar was much harder to cross 30 years ago, but today anyone can write a blog or post on
twittermastadon just like the fine fellows here at Reason to “report” what they saw to the public.However, the folks at an organized media company do think they get some special dispensation. Always have. They aren’t special. They don’t.
They were asked to move the the nearby sidewalk and refused. Everyone who moved to the sidewalk didn't get arrested. - all the activists that is, there were no homeless present.
Corrected headline: "Reporters convicted of trespass for trespassing."
I'm not sure I buy "hours of operation" for grass.
I see Reason wants protected class status for journalist, aka the Hunter Biden treatment. Libertarians for dual justice!
Is that going to be you girls' new cheer now that "You voted for Biden, you wanted this!" has gotten stale?
Stale?
Are you kidding?
These assholes voted for all the shit they're getting. It'll never get stale.
Well, that's not true. It'll get stale for you being always on the receiving end of it.
I didn't vote you brainless dumbfuck.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
You just constantly run defense for him. Even here you are mad people criticize Biden.
Can you put me on your mute list?
And stop calling you out on your retardation? Not a chance.
Yet you cry when people call out your stupidity and won't leave you alone. Lol.
Note the lack of coverage of Hunter's guilty plea here. Even less than WAPO, where the coverage disappeared after one day.
'...Dr. King is convicted of doing his job i.e. disobeying a police order and is fined $14. Dr. King chooses to spend fourteen days in a Montgomery jail...' I guess he should have listed his occupation as 'Civil Rights Journalist'?
"Freedom of the press" is a protected right for all citizens of the USA. It does not mean that members of a journalist guild have special rights that other people do not enjoy. Yes, the police were probably being nitpicky about enforcing the park closure to harass the reporters they regard as hostile, but arguing selective enforcement of a law is not a defense against an actual violation, is it?
"...but arguing selective enforcement of a law is not a defense against an actual violation, is it?"
It seems to be the core of the Trump defense.
Is it a valid defense or not?
That depends on the politics of the accused. Duh.
IANAL but I can read English and use Google. It looks like it can be a valid defense.
"It is not a defense to the merits of the criminal charge itself, but instead an effort to turn the focus on the prosecution and its motivations."
I'm sure that the people prosecuting Trump are interested in achieving justice.
The ‘Tu Quoque’ Defense: “Oh yeah? Whatabout??!?!?”
Why do you use words you don't understand?
"What is...legal precedents, Alex"
If they were trespassing, I'm surprised they weren't shot and killed. I've heard from some people on here that is what should happen to people that are trespassing.
I'm concerned that this community is letting this insurrection go on for so long!
How could the police know if they weren't carrying weapons? What was their actual intent? " Shoot on sight", should be proper police procedure for trespassers. /sarcasm.
I live in Asheville and was shocked to hear that DA Todd Williams, whom I supported, exercised his discretion to prosecute the journalists. I have a feeling this case will be reversed on appeal, for one reason because the judge did not permit the defendants' lawyer, Ben Scales, to discuss the protections of 1A and the freedom of the press...and freedom of assembly.
I'm also aware that Attorney Ben Scales has been a very effective advocate with petit juries. I was surprised that a jury ruled against him and his clients.
I also read that the judge, Tommie Davis, has no roots here, is a Republican from Rutherford County, and apparently does not have much interest in or respect for the Bill of Rights.
https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1671331655259127808?t=KD_x7d4D5I0_a56kXMkthA&s=19
WINNING: Hunter Biden won big today. He's walking free on a tax evasion and gun charges. He also convinced a court to reduce his child support payments by $15K per month AND strip his daughter of the right to use the Biden name.
[Link]
How can a court possibly have any say over what his daughter's name is? Particularly when she's actually his daughter?
Madness. Utter madness.
Yeah, that doesn't seem right. You can name your child anything you want, including last name, as far as I know.
Maybe because it's a name change? Mom should have done it on the birth certificate,
News flash!
"Reporters" (whatever that means these days) ain't nothing special.
They get no more and no less protection from the US Constitution as any other citizen.
This whole shield shit has aggravated me since day one.
(and I can print up "press credentials" at home)
The proliferation of small, independent journalism online has complicated things a bit, but I don't have a problem with laws giving journalists some special privilege. I agree that it's not constitutionally required, though. Or if it is, it has to apply to everyone, not just "professional journalists" (whatever that means at this point).
The problem with giving journalists special privileges is that when the government decides who is or isn't a journalist they can and will revoke privileges for reporters who say things people in government don't like.
My answer to that is that anyone who says they are there as a journalist is there as a journalist. There is no free press if anyone gets to decide who is or is not press.
"Congress shall make no law..."
I just asked this question of you upthread. Sorry I didn't read here, first. I think we're of like mind.
Shocking that a journalist believes journalists should be above the law, but maybe that's just a perk they afford fellow DNC propagandists and not all journalists.
Watching the Cops Helps Us All
But who watches the watchers?
Me.
Ego Custodiens, Motherfuckers.
Watchers who watch the watchers should also be carefully watched. Circumspection and eyes in the back of your head are also helpful.
Wait, what happened to "Nobody is above the law!"? The simple facts here that the park was closed for the night and the reporters decided that they were free to ignore the same laws that apply to everybody else.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Is the argument here that a person in the course of practicing journalism has a general immunity against prosecution for violating any law? That is an extraordinary right, and how do you prove who it applies to and under what circumstances?
I don't think anyone makes that claim. In the specific case of trespassing on public property when there is something of legitimate public interest going on I think there is an argument to be made that the law should not be enforced against people who wish to observe (not limited to pro journalists). Otherwise the police have another handy way to obscure their activities from the public.
That just makes selective prosecution the law of the land. As in Europe, where they simply don't prosecute climate protesters, but thrown the book at anti-migration protesters.
Laws should be enforced uniformly, or they should be changed. It is not the job of police, prosecutors, or judges to choose to selectively disregard laws under a well-defined set of circumstances.
Ideally I agree that should be how it works. But the fact is that many many laws are already regularly selectively prosecuted. It seems likely enough that choosing to prosecute this case was an instance of selective prosecution.
Then there is the spirit/purpose of the law. Why is it illegal to be in the park after 10? Presumably that is to keep a bunch of junkies, bums and gangsters from occupying the park at night and not to stop people from observing police actions.
The fact is that if we want a free country, we better reverse that.
After 9-11 we had a television reporter break into the facility where the local transit busses were parked. He actually showed video of how they did it and filmed on one of the busses. He was charged with "trespassing", but, because the Station was in the hip pockets of the Democrats, the charges were dropped.
Well, luckily, this is not something that is ever going to happen to Reason staff: they aren't journalists, and even if they were, they wouldn't dirty their hands with talking to actual people. Instead, they just pull some study from a faux-libertarian think tank, or some outrage story from a progressive mailing list, and wallow in self-righteous indignation. All. Day. Long.
What's really funny is the the actual progressive left, not the left in your imagination, hates Reason and libertarians for consistently supporting property rights and economic liberty.
Socialists and fascists hated each other too.
Reason isn't libertarian. Neither are you.
Reason is very inconsistent in its support for property rights and economic liberty.
"Socialists and fascists hated each other too."
Conservatives hate libertarians and call them progressives because of their support for personal liberty.
Progressives hate libertarians and call them conservatives because of their support for economic liberty.
Both of those things cannot be true.
"Reason isn’t libertarian. Neither are you."
Then what is a true libertarian?
“Reason is very inconsistent in its support for property rights and economic liberty.”
I assume that means you can easily come up with examples.
Why does the press think the First Amendment gives it more rights than the amendment gives to ordinary citizens? It doesn’t and shouldn’t.