I'd like to think that would be true in this case as well, but I bet the same duality applies; some people get to be in a special class called "journalists" or "reporters", and so get more rights and privileges than Joe Smoe doing basically the same thing.
([0] The best is when the MSM talk about "bloggers" as if this was some well-defined group, with official leaders and common interests.)
When it comes to recording news events, as in this article, any audio or video recorded in a public venue (and that is not sold commercially, if I remember my media law class accurately) is perfectly legal, regardless of who records it. Someone shooting video through your living room window from the middle of the street is, theoretically, legal, as it is in view from a public space. If that person steps on to your lawn and shoots the same video, however, that is invasion of privacy and probably trespassing as well.
While these videos should be completely legal, the laws governing this type of activity are usually state and local. It sounds like the law on the books in Boston is too broad and needs to be challenged.
Of course, IANL; I have a journalism degree and worked in newspapers for 5 years.
As a side note, someone should build a site for theses 'watching the watchers' videos. I'd be a fan.
There is Copwatch. Here is the West Denver group: http://westdenvercopwatch.wordpress.com/
They also have videos on YouTube.
Do you have to work for a newspaper? As fulltime staff
Does the paper have to be a public company, listed on the NYSE or can you be a journalist for a local free paper?
Perhaps it would be easier to just make FOX the official state broadcaster
Previously, as shield laws were determined on a state-by-state basis, the answer varied. However, congress is currently working to adopt a federal shield law, which apparently will define a journalist as such:
(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity— (I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and (II) that— (aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical; (bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; (cc) operates a programming service; or (dd) operates a news agency or wire service;
So by this law, amateur journalists do not count, which is truly unfortunate. Of course, that doesn't exclude amatuer journalists from observing and reporting, it merely excludes them from lawfully being able to not reveal their sources in a court of law.
Read more on this topic here: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-jo...
How does one decide who is a journalist, and who is not? What makes a something a publication; what makes that publication a newspaper or a news source? Is it like jazz or pornography; you know it when you hear it or see it, but can't really define it?
I can understand wanting some distinction with regards to obstruction of justice, but I also worry that bestowing special protections on select groups is prone to political manipulation.