David Gregory breaks law, gets away with it

[Kamakazie Sith]

Am I the only one who thinks journalists should not be held to the same criminal penalties as most people? (I have a feeling if Duchess wasn't on her high horse about gun rights, she'd agree with the concept of a free press.)

If we want a decent journalistic tradition in this country, we shouldn't prosecute journalists for things done in the course of legitimate journalism unless it directly harms someone, or similar extraordinary situations.

I'm with you.

I think people are forgetting that intent matters in law. I think people are also forgetting that journalists have held other illegal items in their hands such as illegal drugs during air time. It's meant to be educational and part of a story. This person didn't intend on taking the magazine home and utilizing it in a weapon at any time.

[Haruko]

Just replying to the article:

Yeah, I don't care that Mr. Gregory showed off an ammo magazine on television, but that law enforcement was sensitive to the circumstances in this case, whereas "little people," as one member pointed out above, routinely get the full force of the law crashing down on them for reasons that would be similarly inane, just one of a plethora of off-hand examples being this one.

In other words, it is the double standard that always bugs me. If you are going to be as cruel as can be for the breaking of any law, do it to the people you like, who are close to your social class, and who can do something for you, too.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Are these "little people" in possession of these illegal items for the purpose of journalism and/or education? If not then the comparison is flawed.

[The Yosemite Bear]

It's legal for a movie company to have thompson sub machine guns, provided they are only shooting blanks.

[Haruko]

Are these "little people" in possession of these illegal items for the purpose of journalism and/or education? If not then the comparison is flawed.

Definitely. Do not mean illegal items in particular. Referring to application of the law in general, as in "little people" prosecuted to full extent while the "big people" are given much sensitivity and leeway. I think journalist Glenn Greenwald referred to that attitude as the two-tiered system of justice.

[Simon_Jester]

Am I the only one who thinks journalists should not be held to the same criminal penalties as most people? (I have a feeling if Duchess wasn't on her high horse about gun rights, she'd agree with the concept of a free press.)

If we want a decent journalistic tradition in this country, we shouldn't prosecute journalists for things done in the course of legitimate journalism unless it directly harms someone, or similar extraordinary situations.

I'm with you.

I think people are forgetting that intent matters in law. I think people are also forgetting that journalists have held other illegal items in their hands such as illegal drugs during air time. It's meant to be educational and part of a story. This person didn't intend on taking the magazine home and utilizing it in a weapon at any time.

My natural instinct is to agree- as long as the same logic is applied to other "possession ban" laws under comparable circumstances, so that it doesn't just turn into...

Yeah, I don't care that Mr. Gregory showed off an ammo magazine on television, but that law enforcement was sensitive to the circumstances in this case, whereas "little people," as one member pointed out above, routinely get the full force of the law crashing down on them for reasons that would be similarly inane...

this.

Let's not have the law press down on a shiny TV news anchor like a feather when it would fall down on a twentysomething urban worker like a boulder.

[Vendetta]

Are these "little people" in possession of these illegal items for the purpose of journalism and/or education? If not then the comparison is flawed.

Definitely. Do not mean illegal items in particular. Referring to application of the law in general, as in "little people" prosecuted to full extent while the "big people" are given much sensitivity and leeway. I think journalist Glenn Greenwald referred to that attitude as the two-tiered system of justice.

Journalists aren't "big people" though.

What they are, if they are front of camera journalists, is public people. And that means that their conduct is already under greater scrutiny than anonymous "little people". So whilst having the magazine in DC might have been illegal, the DC police may well have made the decision that it would be responsibly handled and wouldn't be going back to someone who also possessed it illegally (which it wasn't, the owner lived somewhere where it was legal to own).

That being the case, the benefit to the people of DC in pursuing a prosecution (and since it is the DC police that's what they would primarily consider, the benefit to the people they directly serve) would not be sufficient to warrant the budget spent on it.

If you still think that Gregory should have been prosecuted, that's what you really have to argue, what benefit for the people of Washington DC would accrue from his prosecution?

What people seem to want is some kind of moral statement that journalists aren't above the law, or maybe just legalistic revenge on someone who made an anti-gun statement in public...

[Haruko]

Not sure I agree in this particular case about David Gregory, as he is more than just a journalist, but a big name media star hosting one of the more prominent shows on the major news corps. He is part of that particular class of journalists that other journalists like Salon's Glenn Greenwald deride as the subservient or worshipful establishment journalist class groveling at the feet of government officials like servants at a royal court in order to gain "access" and the prestige and prominence that comes with it.

Of course, as Mr. Greenwald would argue, government officials would court them because people like Mr. Gregory can potentially "hurt" those officials if they would only utilize the role they are supposed to play looking at officials with a critical lens and using their power (e.g., hosting a news platform that airs to millions nationwide) in reporting even what is most unflattering and without prior permission out of consideration for hurt feelings.

Also, if the question is meant at me specifically, I do not actually care about Mr. Gregory being prosecuted for something so inane, only commenting on what I see as the inherent unfairness of a system where "big people" like media stars are routinely given leeway and sensitivity whereas "small people" are routinely given the opposite: little to no leeway and no sensitivity. I do not actually want "big people" getting treated like scum; I actually want both "big people" and "little people" to be treated well. In asking for consistency, I mean to point out that nobody actually wants to be consistent in bringing down the full force of the law, as many actually do not believe such callousness is warranted. In other words, such callousness would at least be intellectually honest, but I doubt the honesty of many.

[amigocabal]

Surely it depends on the context of his ownership of the magazine? If it was his own that he brought in for show and tell and he's had it for ages in violation of the law in question, then yes it makes sense.

If it was acquired specifically for the piece in question then it doesn't make sense to press criminal charges in this case, but the local police should request that if NBC want to do any similar features in future they inform them in advance and potentially ask if the police themselves have a prop they can borrow.

Could he have not used a photograph?

I think people are forgetting that intent matters in law.

Under the law, the only intent needed was an intent to hold the magazine, and I doubt the magazine just spontaneously appeared in Gregory's hand.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Could he have not used a photograph?

Yes. He does not have to though.

Under the law, the only intent needed was an intent to hold the magazine, and I doubt the magazine just spontaneously appeared in Gregory's hand.

You missed the point. Possession needs to be criminal in nature. Not educational. We already covered that journalists, scientists, and in some cases educators can possess illegal items for the purpose of education. I really do not see what is so difficult to comprehend about this fact.