I'm sorry, I'm not from USA, can somebody explain why it has _just_ been _temporarily_ banned to use "force or chemical agents" against journalists? I was under the impression that using such things against journalists was banned a long time ago in most of the developed countries, what with the freedom of the press and so on... Is Minesotta an exception here? Or USA?
The order here[1], which the OP did not cite/link to, is a temporary order to provide relief while a court case is decided.
My understanding of the argument is that the journalists claim that physical force is being used to prevent them from reporting on protests, and that their presence is lawful. The police claim that they are issuing disperse orders to people on the street. The cause of the disperse order is not clear to me: it seems like it could be that there is a curfew presently establish — however, the curfew exempts the press, and so would not apply to them. It could be that they believe the crowd unruly & are trying to maintain safety, however, that action needs to (IMO) be enforced against the individuals that are the cause of the unsafety/riot if there is one, which press acting solely as press cannot by definition be. As the order states,
> Accordingly, in order for the State Defendants' general dispersal orders limiting the press's access to be constitutional, the State Defendants must demonstrate that general dispersal orders are "essential to preserve higher values and [are] narrowly tailored to serve that interest." The State Defendants fail to do so here.³
> ³Indeed, although the State Defendants argue that their general dispersal orders were "necessary for obvious safety reasons," they make no attempt to demonstrate that the general dispersal orders were narrowly tailored to address those safety concerns.
[1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20618077-tro-minneso...
I think that was common in Portland over the last year.