Why?

Regular readers of this blog should have discerned by now that I'm not a First Amendment absolutist. I revere free speech, religion, and press, but I deplore extreme versions of these rights. I also don't support freedom of the press when it might interfere with national security.

But what is going on in New Orleans? It would appear that reporters are being given only limited access to damaged areas and corpses. Why? Surely, there's no national security risk. Are the reporters so numerous that they're interfering with relief efforts? That's certainly believable (heck, they interfere with Jennifer Aniston going on a simple date). I'll have to surf for more information.

At that same fire scene, a police officer from out of town raised the muzzle of her weapon and aimed it at members of the media”¦ obvious members of the media”¦ armed only with notepads. Her actions (apparently because she thought reporters were encroaching on the scene) were over the top and she was told. There are automatic weapons and shotguns everywhere you look. It's a stance that perhaps would have been appropriate during the open lawlessness that has long since ended on most of these streets. Someone else points out on television as I post this: the fact that the National Guard now bars entry (by journalists) to the very places where people last week were barred from LEAVING (The Convention Center and Superdome) is a kind of perverse and perfectly backward postscript to this awful chapter in American history.

Link.