General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: President Obama and the Michael Brown case [View all]bigtree
(85,992 posts). . . I think you've rushed past the op's point about the uncertainty and difficulty in not only defending those assembly rights of press and protestors alike, and also his point that the press isn't afforded (nor should they be) any more or less rights than anyone else in that regard.
As several posters have mentioned on that thread, the order is full of legal holes. That's not to say that it's a certainty that it can't be defended, but it's a historically difficult issue.
I do recall from recent histories uncovered regarding JFK, LBJ, and others regarding their attitude toward the press, that relationship was so cozy and reciprocal that, at times, you could swear the newspapers and editors were on the president's payroll.
Just, foi, of course, not to reflect at all on your own reasonable intention and expectation that the courts respect their rights to assemble.