Professor Melissa Click should be fired

[LittlePinky82]

So, there is no 'said law' to be cited that prohibits a journalist from taking a photo in a public venue. To put this in perspective, the journalist violated no laws and he was assaulted needlessly. Glad we cleared that up.

In other news, let's hope Mizzou can clear up it's campus racism.

No, there is. The right to be left alone is the privacy law. Missouri hasn't cleared it except in terms of Court cases. So there's your answer. So we're both right. It's there in terms of the privacy right but Missouri hasn't cleared it up with any legislation. They really should do that. Especially if we're going to be having more of these protests coming in the future. It would help journalists and citizen's to know their rights on each side of the issue. The only thing they have now are Court cases. And that doesn't really help in situations like this.

And he was not assaulted. Nobody touched him. Assault is unwanted touching. None of that happened.

And apparently they're not. There was a dorm that had a swastika in feces. A student was arrested for bringing a gun on campus and making threats.

Students are being harassed and threatened with violence and they're trying to tell their professors about it to not come on campus during this time. Some professors are canceling class but some aren't and not going to let them make up exams. It's really not resolved... :\

 

[columbus]

In other news, let's hope Mizzou can clear up it's campus racism.

How do you know the campus has a racism problem?
With people like Melissa Click teaching media and communication maybe there is not one. You can't be sure about it, if the media is only allowed to report when someone gives them permission.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Public places are fair game. Just like big groups are. Individual pictures of people are not. If you're going to take someone's individual picture and someone says please don't take my picture you have to listen to them. That was the whole problem here with this situation. The guy not listening to move (when everyone else did) and not listening when individual's didn't want their picture taken. As I previously pointed out, you can see another journalist (a white guy with black hair sorta longish) taking pictures at the beginning. He gets to one guy who is white and he puts his hand up as to say don't take my picture. The guy moves on. Personally, if it was me there, I would have did what students did during the Iraq invasion protests: wear a bandanna to shield the bottom half of your face. That's what youth did when they were protesting that on and off campuses back then. That way, even if someone doesn't listen to your wishes to not be photographed, he really won't have your picture with your whole face.

I just don't see it. Not from a legal standpoint. I'm learning more about Missouri law than I ever wanted to, but I'm at the point where'll you need a specific reference for me to believe this is not just you saying how you think things SHOULD be, as opposed to how they ARE.
Provide the reference and I'll happily retract, but your assertion lacks credibility right now.

Quick example : to one of the posters below you gave a number of references, including this one..

http://www.pcblawfirm.com/articles/legal-issues-photographing-people/

On examination, though, apart from the references that privacy law is practically determined by case precedent, which I get, there are a number of Causes of Action listed directly beneath this as a means of identifying potential privacy breaches.
None of these would even vaguely apply in this case.

Similarly you've linked to Wiki on multiple occasions, but there appears no actual supporting evidence for your position within that Wiki page (for whatever Wiki is worth as a reference anyway).

Here's something that is Missouri-based, but again, I find no reason to even vaguely connect this with what occurred on campus...

http://www.mobar.org/uploadedfiles/Home/Media_Center/Media_Law_Handbook/chapter2.pdf

Like I said, I just don't see it. Is there a case you can refer me to?

 

[LittlePinky82]

I just don't see it. Not from a legal standpoint. I'm learning more about Missouri law than I ever wanted to, but I'm at the point where'll you need a specific reference for me to believe this is not just you saying how you think things SHOULD be, as opposed to how they ARE.
Provide the reference and I'll happily retract, but your assertion lacks credibility right now.

Quick example : to one of the posters below you gave a number of references, including this one..

http://www.pcblawfirm.com/articles/legal-issues-photographing-people/

On examination, though, apart from the references that privacy law is practically determined by case precedent, which I get, there are a number of Causes of Action listed directly beneath this as a means of identifying potential privacy breaches.
None of these would even vaguely apply in this case.

Similarly you've linked to Wiki on multiple occasions, but there appears no actual supporting evidence for your position within that Wiki page (for whatever Wiki is worth as a reference anyway).

Here's something that is Missouri-based, but again, I find no reason to even vaguely connect this with what occurred on campus...

http://www.mobar.org/uploadedfiles/Home/Media_Center/Media_Law_Handbook/chapter2.pdf

Like I said, I just don't see it. Is there a case you can refer me to?

The problem is Mossouri doesn't have anything on legislation dealing with this. All they have is the right to privacy which is the right to be left alone. Their legislators haven't addressed which is a problem. All you have are previous Court cases. And if you're in a Court case your attorney can use other Court cases from other state's which is known as secondary sources. This just helps you present your argument and the Judge can think about it. If it's primary sources it's either federal law or state law they have to listen to.

There are cases on the first link, however, they don't really help with this situation where Missouri is concerned except with the law of right to privacy which is the right to be left alone. The problem comes when you're in public. It's generally understood that you don't have expectation of privacy. So the student was correct in that regard. However, what do you do when someone specifically asks you to please not take my picture? Is the only thing you can do put your hand up? Or do like students did during the Iraq invasion protest's and wear bandanna's? I suppose that is until the issue is properly addressed in Missouri.

 

[LittlePinky82]

How do you know the campus has a racism problem?
With people like Melissa Click teaching media and communication maybe there is not one. You can't be sure about it, if the media is only allowed to report when someone gives them permission.
Tom

Really? So the hunger strike? Student and faculty walk out? The black football players refusing to play and their team standing by them means nothing?

I posted a link earlier on in the whole thread (a couple of pages back) from the NYTimes there and they were interviewing students about it. I also had a post from other media showing it including ESPN talking about the players protesting.

Apparently Click isn't as powerful as you think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7jddqAksZ4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNyn5wRnvMw

You're really giving this one woman, who was an immature brat in a moment in time, too much credit.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The problem is Mossouri doesn't have anything on legislation dealing with this. All they have is the right to privacy which is the right to be left alone. Their legislators haven't addressed which is a problem. All you have are previous Court cases. And if you're in a Court case your attorney can use other Court cases from other state's which is known as secondary sources. This just helps you present your argument and the Judge can think about it. If it's primary sources it's either federal law or state law they have to listen to.

There are cases on the first link, however, they don't really help with this situation where Missouri is concerned except with the law of right to privacy which is the right to be left alone. The problem comes when you're in public. It's generally understood that you don't have expectation of privacy. So the student was correct in that regard. However, what do you do when someone specifically asks you to please not take my picture? Is the only thing you can do put your hand up? Or do like students did during the Iraq invasion protest's and wear bandanna's? I suppose that is until the issue is properly addressed in Missouri.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting what the law SHOULD be, only what it currently appears to be. It just seems incongruous that a faculty member in the area of the Media would make this error. Anyways, she's apologised and resigned, so it ends there for me. If reports of her receiving death threats are real, I hope the perpetrators are found and prosecuted. Stuff like that is odious in the extreme and far exceeds her mistake (obviously).

 

[LittlePinky82]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting what the law SHOULD be, only what it currently appears to be. It just seems incongruous that a faculty member in the area of the Media would make this error. Anyways, she's apologised and resigned, so it ends there for me. If reports of her receiving death threats are real, I hope the perpetrators are found and prosecuted. Stuff like that is odious in the extreme and far exceeds her mistake (obviously).

I understand. You said you weren't a US citizen so why should you be expected to know? You shouldn't be. Yeah she was an immature brat in that moment. It was really stupid on her part. She was fine leading up to that moment if you watch the video. Before hand all she would say is "if you're with the media you need to stand back." When they were going to do their demonstration. Then you see her later with the student filming and that's the "muscle" thing. You can hear she's doing sarcasm in her voice and just being bratty. Honestly she's an adult and in general that's just stupid. I'm immature as **** at times too but really? There was another student who asked him too if he was with the media and she was fine to him and polite. They didn't seem to have any problems and didn't bother each other. It was only her, really. Other staff were fine too considering what was going on. So, she really was the only issue in that one moment. And as you said the school handled the situation fine. Apparently now it's not just her getting death threats but students in general are. They're trying to stay off campus but some professors aren't being understanding and aren't letting them not show up for exams and won't let them do makeups. I find that really ridiculous. If you have a legit fear for your life, especially if you've been involved in these protests, why shouldn't you take precautions? Other professors are generally being understanding though.

Now a Virginia school is also protesting. Thirty students have taken over the president's office. Same situation as Missouri. I was going to make another thread about it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No, there is. The right to be left alone is the privacy law.

Which essentially ends when you go public. I get that this is beyond your comprehension, but it's truly how the law works and is read. All of the court cases agree with this. Once you're in public, all bets are off. Add to that a demonstration which is part of the public's need to know and clearly there is no privacy being invaded when they choose to expose themselves. You don't get to invent rules just to justify boorish behavior.

And he was not assaulted. Nobody touched him. Assault is unwanted touching. None of that happened.

You're confusing battery with assault. From Wikipedia.org: An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. You're debating from sheer ignorance here and I suppose we'll get another "I don't give a damn" retort, which by the way, won't hold up in a court of law. For reals, I'm glad you're not a lawyer. The system is messed up enough without complicating it with emotions based on feelings rather than facts.

Students are being harassed and threatened with violence

You mean just like what happened to the student journalist? You don't get to choose which group gets to have rights. An injustice to one is an injustice to all.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Which essentially ends when you go public. I get that this is beyond your comprehension, but it's truly how the law works and is read. All of the court cases agree with this. Once you're in public, all bets are off. Add to that a demonstration which is part of the public's need to know and clearly there is no privacy being invaded when they choose to expose themselves. You don't get to invent rules just to justify boorish behavior.

You're confusing battery with assault. From Wikipedia.org: An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. You're debating from sheer ignorance here and I suppose we'll get another "I don't give a damn" retort, which by the way, won't hold up in a court of law. For reals, I'm glad you're not a lawyer. The system is messed up enough without complicating it with emotions based on feelings rather than facts.

You mean just like what happened to the student journalist? You don't get to choose which group gets to have rights. An injustice to one is an injustice to all.

A THREAT OF BODILY HARM COUPLED WITH AN *APPARENT,* PRESENT ABILITY TO CAUSE HARM.

The young man not listening to people when they told him MULTIPLE TIMES, along with everyone else in the media, to move back and then getting run over when he didn't listen is not assault. He had many warnings to move from the group. He didn't want to listen. So, when they moved he got in the way. That's not assault. It has to be a threat. Him not listening to move when they told him he should move is not a threat. There were even students who were asking him to move. Because asking someone to move is a threat isn't it?

The student was not being harassed. He was harassing them insisting to take their picture when the said PLEASE DON'T TAKE MY PICTURE. Since when is saying "please" a threat?


So, has he sued yet?

As far as the system in Missouri and the issues of the right to privacy I'll leave you with this:

< In many states, including Missouri, there are no statutes in that address the right of privacy; the right has been created through court decisions. >

So literally, by this alone, there's no statutes there for people with the issue period. The only time it's addressed is if someone sues and a Judge decides and issues a ruling and opinion on the issue at hand. The only thing you have to look at is Court cases that have happened. And I haven't been able to find any type of Court case that is similar enough to be used in this type of situation. Dealing with a large group of people being photographed and asking to not be individually photographed. If you know of a Missouri case that addresses that issue by all means share it.

If this young man really feels as though his rights were violated sue. Let a Judge decide. Since that's literally the only way you can decide on the issue or not since Missouri does not have any statutes on the books that address the issue. So, let him sue the school or whoever was in charge of the demonstration and the whole affair if he really thinks his rights as a journalist were violated. Put your money where your mouth is so to speak. Let a Judge decide and let the chips fall where they may.

Let me know when he sues.

As far as your snarky comment I could say the same about you but I don't because I'm not as insulting or degrading to others for having an opinion different than you. That's really pathetic and not mature at all in a conversation. You're using your emotions too aren't you? You have feelings about the issue too. But I don't degrade you for it. Show some class.

 

[Scuba Pete]

A THREAT OF BODILY HARM COUPLED WITH AN *APPARENT,* PRESENT ABILITY TO CAUSE HARM.

Like the call for "muscle"? That's a very real threat. Even then, it appears that there was actual battery in the very beginning. You can actually see the camera shake.

The young man not listening to people when they told him MULTIPLE TIMES, along with everyone else in the media, to move back and then getting run over when he didn't listen is not assault.

Do they own the property? No. It is public. They have no right to tell him to leave. No one has the right to tell him to leave public property where there is no law to the contrary. They don't enjoy any immanent rights on public land unless they rented it. That's not the case here.

So, has he sued yet?

Let's hope he doesn't. Hopefully her apology will be enough. After all, he has her on video abrogating his civil rights. Not the prettiest picture at a civil rights rally. It's ironic, doncha think?

As far as the system in Missouri and the issues of the right to privacy I'll leave you with this:

< In many states, including Missouri, there are no statutes in that address the right of privacy; the right has been created through court decisions. >

You act like this proves your point. In fact, I'm the one who pointed out that there is no law supporting your position. None, nada and squat. Of course, this may be a vocabulary issue for you. Statutes and laws are the same thing. We call them synonyms. It states that that there are "no statutes" which also means that there are "no laws".

As far as your snarky comment I could say the same about you but I don't because I'm not as insulting or degrading to others for having an opinion different than you. That's really pathetic and not mature at all in a conversation. You're using your emotions too aren't you? You have feelings about the issue too. But I don't degrade you for it. Show some class.

2 phunni. You called me pathetic how many times, and then tell me to show some class? I've patiently tried to cure your ignorance about what is going on here. Like the definition of assault. I showed how you got that mixed up with battery, but you still won't concede the point. Pointing out the flaws in your argument, both logical and factual is not being snarky. I shudder to think that someone may read what you have written and actually give you any credence. If you're going to post your opinions publicly, then you should expect to have people point out the flaws publicly. It's not my fault when you blather mindlessly about that which you obviously don't uinderstand.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Like the call for "muscle"? That's a very real threat. Even then, it appears that there was actual battery in the very beginning. You can actually see the camera shake.

Do they own the property? No. It is public. They have no right to tell him to leave. No one has the right to tell him to leave public property where there is no law to the contrary. They don't enjoy any immanent rights on public land unless they rented it. That's not the case here.

Let's hope he doesn't. Hopefully her apology will be enough. After all, he has her on video abrogating his civil rights. Not the prettiest picture at a civil rights rally. It's ironic, doncha think?

You act like this proves your point. In fact, I'm the one who pointed out that there is no law supporting your position. None, nada and squat. Of course, this may be a vocabulary issue for you. Statutes and laws are the same thing. We call them synonyms. It states that that there are "no statutes" which also means that there are "no laws".

2 phunni. You called me pathetic how many times, and then tell me to show some class? I've patiently tried to cure your ignorance about what is going on here. Like the definition of assault. I showed how you got that mixed up with battery, but you still won't concede the point. Pointing out the flaws in your argument, both logical and factual is not being snarky. I shudder to think that someone may read what you have written and actually give you any credence. If you're going to post your opinions publicly, then you should expect to have people point out the flaws publicly. It's not my fault when you blather mindlessly about that which you obviously don't uinderstand.

Talking about Click's apology we're talking about two different people. That seems to be the problem with our communication.

I just realized this!

I'm sorry it took me this long to realize this. But when you said that it's when it went Ooh we're talking about two different people.

I'm talking about the student journalist. You're talking about the person filming. The person filming didn't claim to be a journalist. He was documenting. When he was asked if he was with the media he responded "I'm documenting." He was the one who Click verbally assaulted and is the only one with any credence to any assault.

Just because the camera is shaking doesn't mean he's being touched. How do you know he doesn't have shaky hands in the moment? My camera shakes when I'm holding it sometimes especially if I have the zoom on really much.

The person I'm talking about is at the beginning who the person is filming who IS a student journalist and who was not threatened by Click or anyone else. He just refused to move out of people's way when he had numerous warnings to please move.

The student journalist was the Asian young man with the glasses and expensive professional camera taking people's pictures.

So it seems we're having this banter still because we're talking about two different people.

Do you understand now?

I agreed with you that the person filming deserved the apology and Click behaved wrong in her treatment to him. She did verbally threaten him with her snarky comment about muscle. The Asian young man who was the student journalist didn't have anything against him. He just refused to move and got run over in the process because they were doing their demonstration.

I hope it is more clear now that we're talking about two different people. I don't think the man filming was with the Asian man or anything. He just happened to be there at that moment. You can see other students with their hand phones as well filming the whole incident around them. He wasn't the only one.

So, I hope we're clear on this matter now and that we're agreeing we're just talking about two different people.

I agree with you about the person filming and that Click acted wrongly to him. The student journalist is a different person.

Oh and I do agree it's ironic such an incident happened at a civil rights rally. And it's good that she lost her appointment in journalism. The school handled it fine and they dealt with it as they see fit as an institution.

The person I was talking about in his civil rights as a journalist is the Asian young man with the glasses. If he feels as though he had his civil rights violated the only way he can really get it cleared up is by suing and having a Judge decide since Missouri doesn't have any statutes on the books about it. I couldn't find any case relevant enough to be used as a guide in this discussion.

Spoiler

Because I think it's important what one allows with people that one agrees with, since the same behavior could be dangerous in the hands of someone else, like one's enemy. Generally speaking, I think if one wouldn't want one's enemy to be able to do something, one shouldn't support one's friend being able to do it. Things have a way of turning and cycling.

You see, I disagree that a protesting group should be allowed to exclude the media from public spaces, just because they want to. I disagree in this situation, even though I think racism is harmful and cruel. I'd disagree with the media being kept out if the demonstrating group was the KKK, and they wanted an exclusive off-limits to the media area on campus. I'd definitely want the media in there seeing what they're up to.

Just because they have some grievances against the administration, doesn't mean they get to dictate how and where the media records this event on campus. The president had just resigned. They were celebrating that and still protesting. It wasn't just "their" event even. It was a school event.

I think you misread his posts then.

You are a very special person.

I wanted to include you all because I think we had the same problem and I just realized it.

 

[Mister Emu]

Now thestudent who was in the altercation with Dr. Click has decided to press charges.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/12/us-usa-race-missouri-professor-idUSKCN0T12OV20151112

 

[esmith]

Now thestudent who was in the altercation with Dr. Click has decided to press charges.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/12/us-usa-race-missouri-professor-idUSKCN0T12OV20151112

Good for him, but it probably will not amount to much since your source indicates the police are investigating this as a "minor assault" Of course maybe the DOJ should get involved since Click probably violated his civil rights. Note to DOJ, you will investigate this won't you?

 

[4consideration]

I think the reporter has a case. He might also have one against a couple others that can be seen in the video, or as part of a larger case against the faculty member(s) that were leading the students to keep the media out of a certain area, and prevent the photos they were attempting to prevent. They were surrounding him, for the purpose of stopping him from photographing, and worked together to push him out of the area.

(I don't think they were trying to hurt him at all, but I can see the argument this was assault by them, as well.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-journalism-professor-barring-media-coverage/

1. At 3:46 the guy grabs the reporter's arm and pulls it down.

2. At 3:48, when the reporters puts his hands right back over his head and jumps up a little, the woman swings her arm toward him, knocking his arm -- then denied that she touched him. It doesn't look like she was trying to hurt him --and it may have been just a swing of a reaction because of how close she's standing to him, but she did touch him while in the process of attempting to stop him from taking pictures.

 

[columbus]

Good for him, but it probably will not amount to much since your source indicates the police are investigating this as a "minor assault"

It's entirely possible that what the plaintiff is after is not damages. He probably wants a court ruling in favor of freedom of the press. He's likely to get one under the circumstances. And it would be the sort of case law future decisions will be based upon.
Tom

 

[LittlePinky82]

Now thestudent who was in the altercation with Dr. Click has decided to press charges.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/12/us-usa-race-missouri-professor-idUSKCN0T12OV20151112

Since he was the one with the altercation he had verbal assault so I don't know how it will go for him but he at least has a case to made. She did make a verbal assault even if she was being snarky and immature in the threat. It's still a threat. And bringing over two guys as well could be backing it up. Even if they didn't touch him it's still verbal assault. How it's going to play I don't know. I agree it's probably going to be something minor since it was just verbal. But verbal assault is still assault. It will be interesting to see what the Judge says and what happens.

I think the reporter has a case. He might also have one against a couple others that can be seen in the video, or as part of a larger case against the faculty member(s) that were leading the students to keep the media out of a certain area, and prevent the photos they were attempting to prevent. They were surrounding him, for the purpose of stopping him from photographing, and worked together to push him out of the area.

(I don't think they were trying to hurt him at all, but I can see the argument this was assault by them, as well.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-journalism-professor-barring-media-coverage/

1. At 3:46 the guy grabs the reporter's arm and pulls it down.

2. At 3:48, when the reporters puts his hands right back over his head and jumps up a little, the woman swings her arm toward him, knocking his arm -- then denied that she touched him. It doesn't look like she was trying to hurt him --and it may have been just a swing of a reaction because of how close she's standing to him, but she did touch him while in the process of attempting to stop him from taking pictures.

This guy I don't know about. They warned him to move multiple times and he didn't. And he was literally inches in their faces with his camera and they were asking him numerous times to please not take my picture. I don't think they were trying to hurt him either. Just get him to step back. In the video you can hear him arguing with a young female student about it and she says it's fine to take pictures just step back. That's all they were trying to get. Also, in the video you can see at the beginning of it all where he touches them to try to push through them and they don't move and a white faculty member (supposedly Click's husband?) comes over to say to not touch the students and he agrees and doesn't.

I agree with your response wiht it and both people can have a case. I'm interested in seeing what the judge decides.

Like I said before if he really felt as if his rights were being infringed upon sue and if you have a case the Judge will decide either way.

The problem with Missouri is there is no statutes on the books about the right to be left alone. The only way you can clear these situations is through a Judge's ruling/opinion.

So, I'm glad this is happening so they can at least have this on record for future instances. I looked at other cases on that one link and there weren't any relevant enough for this situation to be used as a guide. At least this situation there can now be something since the only way you can know is through Court cases.

Good for him, but it probably will not amount to much since your source indicates the police are investigating this as a "minor assault" Of course maybe the DOJ should get involved since Click probably violated his civil rights. Note to DOJ, you will investigate this won't you?

I doubt the DOJ will get involved. It seems too minor for them. He's a student journalist as well. If he was with some big time shot enterprise maybe but I doubt it.

Also, technically since he is still a student and he hasn't gotten his degree yet he's not technically a journalist yet. So, you can make the argument his rights weren't infringed upon as a journalist since he's technically not one yet. And they weren't infringing upon his rights. They were trying to get him to step back. That's all if you watch the video. As I said, the one female student he was talking to about it said it was fine to take pictures just to step back. And this will hopefully clear up the issue of if a person has the right or not to be left alone in regards to a journalist taking their picture when they ask. Nobody told him don't take pictures period. They either said to step back or please don't take MY picture as in their individual self. So, hopefully this case can clear up that issue about taking individual people's pictures when they ask you not to.

 

[esmith]

It's entirely possible that what the plaintiff is after is not damages. He probably wants a court ruling in favor of freedom of the press. He's likely to get one under the circumstances. And it would be the sort of case law future decisions will be based upon.
Tom

Astute observation and highly possible. Now, one must ask was his Civil Rights violated under the 1st Amendment, Freedom of the Press? If so would this be a case that the DOJ should become involved in? They have in the past been aggressive in going after possible civil rights violations. Now I'm not saying that the DOJ is affected by politics, but the White House has come out in support of the demonstrators. If the DOJ investigates this they also have to not only look at the actions of Click but the actions of other demonstrators. Now I'm not saying that this would be an embarrassment for the White House, but depending on how the students look at it, it could be if the DOJ get involved.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Astute observation and highly possible. Now, one must ask was his Civil Rights violated under the 1st Amendment, Freedom of the Press? If so would this be a case that the DOJ should become involved in? They have in the past been aggressive in going after possible civil rights violations. Now I'm not saying that the DOJ is affected by politics, but the White House has come out in support of the demonstrators. If the DOJ investigates this they also have to not only look at the actions of Click but the actions of other demonstrators. Now I'm not saying that this would be an embarrassment for the White House, but depending on how the students look at it, it could be if the DOJ get involved.

No. He's a student journalist. He's not a journalist yet. He doesn't have his degree yet. So how can he have his rights as a journalist violated if he's not even a journalist yet? They're not going to get involved in a minor case. And, if you watched the video with him, he was the one who was more of an issue. As pointed out the other side has just as much a case, if not more so, than he does.

The only person who really has a case is the student who filmed the whole affair who was verbally assaulted by Click and even that is minor. They're not going to get involved in this. It's way too minor.

The only thing this case might do is help Missouri be more clear in the right to privacy law in the state since they don't have statutes about it.

It's entirely possible that what the plaintiff is after is not damages. He probably wants a court ruling in favor of freedom of the press. He's likely to get one under the circumstances. And it would be the sort of case law future decisions will be based upon.
Tom

No, he won't. He wasn't stopped. He was just asked to get his camera out of their faces, literally, and he didn't listen when they asked him to step back and he got run over as a result of not listening to them. They can even make a case against him since he touched them at the beginning trying to push through them and they told him not to touch. Why is that hard to understand? He's not going to be ruled in favor of is my prediction. The only one who has a case, and even then VERY minor, is the person who Click verbally assaulted. Even then she didn't do anything and was sarcastic and immature so he might not even have a case there since nothing actually happened to him and she already apologized and had a punishment and is now getting death threats.

I would be surprised if anything happens for either of them. But, like I said, it's good this case is happening to clear up the issue.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I just saw this and suggest it-

http://kbia.org/post/4-things-you-might-have-wrong-about-mizzou-story

Here's the four things:

1. Melissa Click has not actually resigned, and she’s not a journalism professor.

2. It wasn't just student protests that led to the ouster of MU Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin.

3. But Wolfe wasn't always the focus for student protests.

4. These types of incidents aren't new at MU, and past administrations have tried to address racism and diversity on campus.


Where it concerns Click I'll post about that-

If you’ve been following this story, you likely know who Melissa Click is. She entered the story after former President Wolfe resigned. Students were celebrating on the MU campus, and it led to confrontations between reporters and demonstrators. You’ve probably seen this video:

(the video is the one already posted in the thread from the guy who got verbally assaulted by Click I won't repost it since it's already here)

There have been a lot of headlines floating around since then about Click, and some of these have implied or directly said she is part of the Missouri School of Journalism faculty. Importantly, she is actually a member of the College of Arts and Science, and had a courtesy appointment to the School of Journalism. However, she has never taught a journalism course at the school, so referring to her as a journalism professor is highly misleading.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that Click has since resigned that courtesy appointment to the Journalism School. That led to more confusion as headlines oversimplified her move: “University of Missouri Professor Who Confronted Photographer Quits Journalism Post.” While technically accurate, the shorthand interpretation of that kind of headline leads to a common misconception that Click had a teaching role in the Journalism School and that she no longer has a job. I know I've had half of a dozen people tell me they think she's resigned, period, not understanding she's just resigned the courtesy appointment. As of this writing, she still has her job as a Communications professor.

I know the Nazi swastika thing has been mentioned and pictures have been released-

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/12...etails-of-previously-unreported-racial-slurs/

More defamation on the campus. A sign was defaced-

https://imgur.com/qSMMdPl

Here's a man who is 89 and graduated from the school and was a real student of 1950. He offers great advice to the students protesting now and shares his experience there-

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/u...rod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=1

 

[Mister Emu]

It will be interesting to see what the Judge says and what happens.

Indeed, legally, I could see some humble community service. I would also like to see the administration take action. A suspension so she can reflect and mandatory sensitivity, rights, and civility training would be apropos.