The media is NOT being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson

Rebuttal 1: temporary suppression is still suppression:examples of "media suppression"These are all examples of successful and complete suppression, but none of these examples demonstrate that the media was not actively experiencing suppression efforts in Ferguson. The prompt of this debate, was that the media is '"being suppressed" as the act was taking place at the time. This is no longer the case, but it does not change the fact that for several days, the media was actively suppressed in Ferguson. :"internet proxy attacks,..."These are all examples of suppression, as are intimidation of journalists, as well as the arrest of journalists, both of which happened in Ferguson.Rebuttal 2: The methods of suppression:HOW are the law enforcement agencies carrying out this suppression?1. By arresting over a dozen journalists who were doing their jobs within their constitutionally protected rights. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) While no charges are filed against them (and no paperwork as well), that does not mean that the media members were not suppressed as a result of their arrest. Even if temporarily. :No recording equipment, documentation, or evidence has been destroyed or unlawfully confiscated.This is inaccurate. 2. Several journalists were even injured by police, their equipment was damaged. (9) (10)They even have a fundraiser to replace the damaged equipment. (13)3. As I have demonstrated above. Several cameras were confiscated and videos deleted. The Al Jazeera crew's equipment was confiscated for several days, which is why their video of the teargas attack was not released until days after the other TV station's point of view had been shared. (11) (12) (14)Pro argues that a temporary suppression doesn't count as suppression. The constitution disagrees. 4. The police force is also intimidating journalists. - "Get the F*** out of here, Turn off that light, how dare you, if you turn on that light, you're getting shot with this" (15)- "I'll bust your a$$, I'll bust your head right here," Officer tells Al Jazeera journalist. Threatens to arrest them and take their film. (16)- "I"ll kill you" a police pointing a rifle at civilians says to the civilians. (17) : No journalists, as of August 21st, have been charged with a crime or held without charges...Again, inaccurate, dozens have been arrested unconstitutionally. Their ability to report was suppressed during the hours they were detained.No paperwork on the arrests have been issued, which is illegal, no arresting officer named, no reports filed. All of this is unconstitutional, and an example of media suppression. : One must wonder, exactly what is the police force doing that is considered "suppression of the media"Please see the above 17 examples. Rebuttal 3- the purpose behind the suppression.1. Pro has already answered this question.. :"By controlling information, the authorities control the public opinion. By controlling public opinion - you control the people."2. It is clear the police have a vested interest in controlling the perception of their officer and their police force in the eyes of the public. (18) (19) 3. They have a vested interest in assassinating the character of the deceased. (20)4. They have a vested interest in labeling the protesters as looters, so their concerns and complaints will be dismissed. (21) Rebuttal 3.1 " The specific points: It's not to hide the protests or riots; they've both been happening almost every dayThe protests have not been happening every day. This statement is proof the media suppression and propaganda efforts by the police force has worked rather well. The past three nights have been peaceful in Ferguson. (22) : It's not to hide police actions, as the FBI is already investigating with much more thoroughness and scrutiny than the media ever will.Pro believes that the media scrutiny is unnecessary because the FBI is now investigating, however without the media coverage (and the outrage over unconstitutional media suppression) the FBI would not have become involved, as it took several days before that decision was made.: So what is my opponent claiming the law enforcement agencies in Ferguson are attempting to conceal?1. An accurate depiction of the community, of the protesters and of the timeline surrounding the shooting of Brown. 2. They have a specific desire to see their fellow officer protected, and they know an accurate and honest accounting of events is not likely to produce that result. Rebuttal 4 " Who is responsible?: It's not the local police; they enacted an operational shift only three days after the incident, effectively handing all policing matters over to state authorities.1. They handed operation over to the Highway Patrol after several days. The responsibility lies with the Ferguson police for the first three days of suppression, then the Highway patrol for the remaining several days until the National Guard was brought in.2. Many of the violations against the media have been carried out by the County law enforcement. (23)"St. Louis County Police were charged with maintaining order. But their militarized response of aggressive tactics and heavy weaponry further angered not only local residents, but also people across the nation...": The FBI has opened an investigation on both the shooting AND the entire department of Ferguson, sending 40 agents to do an investigation - only 2 days after the incident.1. This was in response to the outrage over police suppression of the media2. Furthermore, an FBI investigation has nothing to do with whether or not the media was actively suppressed by the authorities in Ferguson, which has been illustrated above. : These entities have all been in communication and cooperation with one another, the mayor of Ferguson, the governor of Missouri, and the Attorney General of the United States.None of those entities are media. None of this has any bearing on the argument. These are examples of Red Herring arguments. : No authority involved in the aftermath of this tragedy has the means or desire to prevent the media from reporting the events in Ferguson.The arrest of over a dozen journalists has already proven they have both the means and the desire to suppress the reports, and prevent the spread of factual information on the ground, at least temporarily, which is enough to get their narrative out there.: Doing so would only make people angrier,Which is precisely why the protesters are so angry at being attacked by police. : make policing harder and more dangerousIt also makes protesting peacefully harder and more dangerous, due to the use of rubber bullets and tear gas to dispel peaceful protesters under the guise of preventing looting. : The claim that a law enforcement agency is involved in suppression of the media begins to look more and more like a conspiracy"It"s not a conspiracy, so much as it is the blue code. They protect their own. They protect the officer. They also follow orders. If they have been ordered not to cooperate or allow media to film, they will follow that order."Overnight, several journalists reported being detained, threatened or otherwise prevented from covering the unfolding story"" (25): What we're seeing in the wake of the tragedy in Ferguson are isolated abuses of authorityAbuses such as authorities unconstitutionally suppressing the media and unconstitutionally attacking and threatening media and protesters. : They deserve attention, and require an answer, but in no way indicate there is a widespread attempt to suppress the media.1. Save for the dozens of media members who were actively suppressed. (1-17)2. The no Fly Zone (26) 3. media being prevented from traveling to protests (27)4. The active threatening of journalists" lives and safety. (9, 15, 16)It certainly doesn't seem isolated. It seems concentrated and targeted. Due to space, sources are in the comments section.