Two people have been charged with criminal mischief with a hate crime enhancement for the antisemitic vandalism of the homes of the director and other leaders of the Brooklyn Museum in June, a vicious and outrageous attack that rightly shocked the city. The vandals should be caught and punished.
One of the accused however, Sam Seligson, is a longtime videographer journalist who says he was there to cover the incident. Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez’s office is treating him inseparably from the other perpetrators.
Journalists are not immune from prosecution. The First Amendment right against abridging the freedom of the press is no shield for lawbreaking, so Gonzalez has to establish whether Seligson was a participant in this offense or an observer.
The case against Seligson, as laid out in the complaint and in the DA’s office’s own accounts of the events is thus: Seligson was captured on surveillance video being in the car with the other alleged perpetrators, which means he must have coordinated with them (or simply got a tip and rode along, as journalists often do with people they’re not in league with).
The video also shows him carrying a bag, which certainly could have contained some of the red paint and other materials used for vandalism (or perhaps it was Seligson‘s own video equipment).
The DA also believes Seligson wasn’t acting as a journalist because he did not immediately publish the video he took at the scene (though it’s not known if he was in touch with outlets about it or was using the footage in some longer-form documentary or anything else about his intentions with it).
The prosecutors would likely retort that this is all for a judge and jury, but it’s not like these charging decisions are out of their hands. It’s the prosecutors’ job to first make sure that the cases are rooted in solid ground before moving forward, and in the case of Seligson, was he there as part of the crime or as a witness who was documenting the event? Or did his role encompass both, in which case prosecution would be warranted.
We reiterate that reporters have no immunity from prosecution, especially if there is clear evidence that they engaged in a crime. But if a journalist had to worry about being charged as an accessory or accomplice every time we were speaking with or in the vicinity of lawbreakers, or hearing information about their activities, it would be impossible to do this job.
In that way, this case is about more than just Seligson. A district attorney isn’t the one to determine whether or not someone is engaged in journalism or not.
Of course, anyone can call themselves a journalist, but Seligson is a member of the working press. He has been published by Reuters, Al-Jazeera, ABC and Fox News, and is credentialed by the city.
If proven that Seligson was a party to the crime, as Gonzalez alleges, then Seligson would have undermined the pursuit of journalism. If Seligson‘s presence at the scene of the crime was legitimate, then there should be no prosecution of him.
Gonzalez must be careful in how he proceeds because of this balance.
