Did the University of Missouri protesters have a legal right to privacy on their protest site?
<p>There was a recent altercation recently between media representatives and protesters at the University of Missouri. The protesters formed a human barrier around the camp, impeding free access to anyone. They also went as far as physically pushing away media representatives. </p>

<p>The rationale, according to one Twitter account associated with the protest:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“We ask for no media in the parameters so the place where people live, fellowship, and sleep can be protected from twisted insincere narratives,” a Twitter account associated with the activists later declared, adding that “it’s typically white media who don’t understand the importance of respecting black spaces.” </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Did they have any legal grounds to block access to the protest site, which is ostensibly a public space? </p>

<p>Video of the altercation here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18</a></p>

<p>In this specific case and location, the precise location of the incident <em>was</em> explicitly made a public space via state law not too long before this actual event.</p>

<p>They therefore most certainly have no right to privacy. </p>

<p>What is interesting to me though is the other side of this, does someone have the <em>right</em> to record others in public spaces, or is it simply <em>not illegal?</em> For instance if I non-destructively and non-violently "jam" your camera by shooting a low-power IR beam at your lens, have I abridged a legal right of yours? I don't think it would be illegal to do this. I am not even positive its against the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment relates only to the dissemination of information, not the collection of it. The Constitution doesn't seem to compel the gov't to make information available, or even to make things/events/spaces observable. The various "sunshine" laws after-all had to be enacted, it wasn't part of an interpretation of the 1st Amendment. </p>

<p>To put a finer point on it, is recording events in public spaces <em>legal</em> or merely <em>lawful</em>?</p>

<p>First of all, the property of the University of Missouri is probably <strong>not</strong> public space.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding, "public space" needs to be understood as "space which is <em>normally</em> open to the public subject to whatever conditions the person with lawful authority over the space decides". For example, the National Parks Service can charge an entry fee and prescribe conditions of use for entering a national park; they can also require anyone to leave for breaching those rules or for safety reasons. Similarly, the City of Los Angeles can close a public street to stage a parade and emergency services usually have wide ranging powers to limit access to anywhere.</p>

<p>Likewise, the University of Missouri can decide what areas of their property is notionally public and what are private and the conditions that apply to access and can change this whenever they like. They can also delegate that authority to, for example, tenants.</p>

<p>So your question becomes "Do the protesters have lawful authority over the area?"</p>

<p><strong>TL;DR</strong></p>

<p>Probably not.</p>

<p>Your question seems to relate to privacy moreso that what is public space.  In other words, does a person on the yard/quad of University of X have a right to not be photographed or videotaped.  That answer is no they do not.  This is a freedom of speech issue and the photographer has a right to photograph.</p>

privacy freedom-of-speech