This week on the wheelhouse.

Ice in America and Connecticut.

And nationwide protests and questions of free speech.

And.

Freedom.

For Connecticut public.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

This is the wheelhouse.

It's a show that connects politics to the people.

We got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

The Abraham a Rebecca federal courthouse is about a ten minute drive away from where I sit now, here in Hartford.

It's a place where federal immigration and Customs Enforcement have a local office.

And earlier this month, protesters gathered there after an Ice agent killed Renee Good over 1000 miles away in Minneapolis.

Protesters and reporters covering the event were doused with pepper spray.

Federal officers also drove through the crowd, and video shows someone appearing to shatter the rear window window of a van.

We'll play some sound our reporters got from that protest later on in the show.

In a statement, the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security called the mob crowd the crowd a mob of radical agitators and, quote and said they were, quote, obstructing federal law enforcement.

This hour, we're sorting through the rhetoric and asking how all the players, government agents, protesters, even journalists are reacting to a new era in American protests.

Here to help me with the show, Gloria J. Brown, Marshall and Emmy Award winning writer and professor of constitutional law.

With her newest book, she writes that protests is an American tradition.

Gloria, thanks very much for being on the show this morning.

Thank you.

And there's the book right next to you.

It's a protest history of the United States.

I'm glad that you have that right there on your zoom screen.

A lot of building there works with the local chapter of the ACLU as a senior staff attorney.

A lot of thanks so much for being here.

Good to see you in person.

Lovely to see.

Thanks for having me.

Folks, if you have a question, give us a call at 887209677.

We're hoping to understand a little bit about your reactions to protests, whether you plan on doing something like that, whether you're against the protest.

Give us a call (800)872-0967 seven.

Gloria, we're going to go back a little bit here to May 2020.

This was when George Floyd was murdered blocks away from Renee Good's recent fatal shooting.

Protests have ignited throughout the country since.

Can you give us a sense of how things are evolving or devolving, rather how protests are sort of changing since that?

Well, there are many similarities as well as differences.

The similarities.

Something happens that really triggers emotional response in people.

They want to do something.

They want to show the government that they're angry, that there should be changes made, that something the government did is wrong.

And those people go into the streets.

They have signs.

They're telling the government that they're on the wrong path.

That's one thing that's very similar to the murder of George Floyd, and the fact that we saw both of them there.

You know, we're looking at the video and the government is saying it's one thing, and the people are saying it's something else.

And so you have that clash.

I think the difference is, even though there was a governmental response to the protests that took place during George Floyd's murder, the government response this time is to be harsher, crueler.

Actually, at central government against the protesters, as opposed to state government that we had before the George Floyd and the constitutional right to protest was already, actually being narrowed and people are already being used as a target of propaganda because they are exercising their rights.

And so now is an all out clash without a semblance of attempt to find common ground.

I'm going to bring in Alana here, just to get a sense of a basic reaction here from from what you're watching as an attorney here.

What kind of things are you hoping to see here or in terms of accountability?

What are you hoping to understand, particularly as somebody who has a background not just in understanding what might happen to an advocate or something like that, but also, in, in handling immigration cases and following them.

I mean, I met it's a great question and I am not going to say anything you don't know.

We we all know kind of intuitively at this point, you know, I'm, I'm, I like the public and certainly like, lawyers around the country are watching, with, with horror because there's just a total, disregard for the law.

And that's putting it nicely.

Right.

In some of these, in many of these contracts.

And so, I again, I think they don't know, but we're living in very scary times where the normal kind of parameters, the established parameters in the law for how interaction should go between law enforcement, and people observing them, and reporting on them and making a record of their actions.

Those parameters are being thrown out the window in real time as we speak.

And we're here fighting like many, many others, to, to keep, you know, to, to hold, to hold our ground that we have constitutional protections.

We have state protections here in Connecticut.

We, you know, that that is the law.

And we'll we'll sit here.

Stand up, fight it, fight for it.

As long as we have to.

Good to hear your perspective on that is very important to hear that and also to hear your perspective as well.

Gloria, as we're talking about sort of what's changing in the last few years.

It is ironic to me that this does happen so much as we've seen the videos here of what happened to George Floyd's, almost six years ago now.

And, and now.

Renee.

Good.

There's video evidence.

We'll ask Alana about that a little bit, but I just want to get your, your take sort of on on how the country sort of in one way, being retraumatized here in a way.

Gloria.

Well, unfortunately, protests has always been dangerous, and it may appear as though we freely, can exercise our First Amendment rights, the right to peaceably assemble.

But we also have the right, which is the last line of the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances to petition, to ask for a redress, to fix, for grievances, complaints.

So we have the right to tell the government our complaints, the what we're seeing now and being being retraumatized is that the this particular federal government and because Donald Trump has called himself a dictator, I refer to it as a regime.

This particular regime and the masked, officers who are perpetrating the oppression of US constitutional rights to protest, is it it's a scale way beyond anything we've seen in the past, outside of the civil rights movement in the Deep South, when black Americans were protesting for their right to vote, then you saw attacks like those on in Birmingham lights up the the, Emma Pettus Bridge.

So this is a national wide scale beyond what we saw than the horrendous, way in which the local government, was, attacking protesters, peaceful protesters in the 1960s.

And during that civil rights movement.

Alana, just really quickly here, I want to understand, as we're talking about there's video here, as we talk about there's a potential re traumatization of Americans here.

Viral video.

That's a big part of the story here.

Can you help us understand how that might help in terms of accountability and how it might also ignite the situation?

Yeah.

And I really want to echo something that I just said, which is so true.

It's something so that protesters have been, you know, just just fine for three decades.

No problems.

Not at all.

But we're just what we're seeing is orders of magnitude and on a scale, just that that I think goes beyond anything we've seen so far, you know, video and, Glenn, I'm glad you raised it.

You know it is.

Let me be clear.

It is perfectly lawful to record law enforcement activity.

Period.

Full stop.

And, you know, filming police, filming, law enforcement, while they carry out their, you know, daily duties.

It's something that courts have recognized as ubiquitous and lawful for more than a decade now.

I will say I would even say decades, the vast majority or I would say every, Court of Appeals that this is the courts right under the Supreme Court to consider the issue, has affirmed that the, citizens, non-citizens, people who are serving police, have the right to record them.

That's just part of our First Amendment rights.

If we the right to disseminate speech, we have the right to create speech in the media.

It doesn't matter.

First Amendment, that sounds like something that is national and sounds like it's U.S law.

So that's not just necessarily something that varies state by state.

Can spread it all throughout everybody.

Everybody has the right to record the policing.

And I can't say that enough.

And in fact, right now, here at is so you can I, can we have a case going up to the Second Circuit.

Our local federal appeals court called Massimino, again, know, reaffirming that the right to to to film police.

So to be clear, there is no there is no contest.

You, you and I, Frankie.

Gloria, everybody in this state, everybody in this country has the right to feel law enforcement peaceably.

In public outdoor spaces, full stop.

888729677 is the number two calls.

We're going to bring in a caller shortly.

Not just yet.

I know I'm teasing it, but I just want to ask you one more question about this to sort of button this up.

So as you say, full stop, you can do this.

Nonetheless, the federal government is is using different rhetoric here, and we'll try to parse through that, to do that.

But is this something that's just going to have to play out in the courts of particularly they're saying that you can't impede or obstruct, law enforcement by taking video.

I'd like to get both of your takes on this as well, but we'll start with Alana.

Yeah.

And I'm glad you I'm glad you raised it right.

So let's go through the nuance here.

You you can film police.

You can at least law enforcement of any kind of ice, and, and and their colleagues.

You can't it is true.

You can't obstruct and you can't impede.

18 U.S.C.

111, is a federal statute, for federal law enforcement.

You can't you cannot obstruct them.

But the courts originally understood as any rational person would, that simply standing and filming is not obstruction, is not impeding.

Certainly doesn't protect it does not protect incitement, true threats, violence.

Right.

You can't you can't go beyond, there is a line that you can cross.

And I think we all have a great and many of us, you know, many of us are really at risk, in being police these days.

But there's nothing inherently about filming as any kind of reasonable person, I think, would agree that, is, you know, obstruction or impediment.

So filming itself again, fine.

Impeding and obstructing is, is very much, in the eye of the beholder.

And that's what makes things dangerous here, because of course, you know, law enforcement's story may be different from your story.

When push comes to shove.

I'd like to get your take on that.

Gloria, what do you think about that?

A First Amendment right, as you're saying.

And and you're saying this is something that, can't be assailed here.

This is something that is, part of our history here.

The United States, I think, is saying, well, we'll see.

The the idea of having witnesses to police brutality goes back a long way.

I, that's how history is recorded.

That's how we have, the cases that have come, over the years.

And once again, I go to the civil rights movement.

It was because there were people press at that time filming the civil protesters, filming the dogs and the water hoses, because there were people at the Edmund Pettus Bridge filming the attacks by sheriff's deputies on peaceful protesters, that we had the footage because what happened was Rodney King, that there was someone to film it with Walter Scott, there was someone to film it.

So film has played a large role in our history of social justice, and what we've seen has to tackle these protesters by, those people who are whether or not they're civilians or someone else who's participating, that's why we have cameras now.

Because of what happened with George Floyd.

That's what came out of it, that there would be more law enforcement agents with cameras, but they're investing in their cost to record this.

So it's not just one word against another, because too often when it's law enforcement word, the juries believe law enforcement, even when they find that sometimes they're not speaking truthfully.

So I think the the idea of the film is more than just retraumatizing, as we saw with Eric Garner, is the actual, evidence that can be used in court to show how far away someone was, whether or not they were actually impeding any type of of action by law enforcement.

And who is to blame for the loss of life?

(888)720-9677 the number to call.

If you'd like to join us this morning, we have John from Glastonbury who's giving us a call right now.

John, go ahead.

Hey, thanks for taking my call.

Yeah, I figured I'd try to balance the discussion out a little bit.

You guys, always seem to be so far, imbalanced in your reporting.

Oh, thank you so much for that, John, I appreciate it.

Go ahead.

Well, I've been I've been, following you guys for a very long time and talking with your leadership and so forth.

The bottom line is ice is doing a very, very dangerous job.

They're removing some very bad people, and we're not focused on all of the things that they're doing.

The bad people that are in our communities as a result of the last administration.

We've got child rapist, we've got murderers.

Well, I, I would like to say that I think that you're focused primarily on trying to make sure that you want to talk about, keeping, unlawful immigrants out of here.

That's what you want to talk about here today, right?

I mean, you know, we've got over 10 million people estimated, you know, that have come across the border.

We had a federal government that was actually suing states from enforcing their borders, removing barriers, allowing this influx.

That's why we are here today, not to mention the sanctuary cities that basically say we're not going to cooperate with the rule of law.

That's not democracy.

We're going to we're going to harbor these people in our community.

So now Ice has to go out into the communities.

So where's the accountability for every, every everything we're facing right now as a result of these very, very bad policies.

And we're trying to make them right.

And and you've got ice.

John, thank you so much for the call this morning.

I appreciate you calling in, John.

Very, not happy with, first of all, our reporting, but also with the Biden administration, and, and a policy of open borders.

And he's also talking about sanctuary cities, which is something that we've heard about.

We were talking about the rhetoric earlier, which is something that in this protest we were talking about with Hartford earlier, this is something that the Trump administration is using against places like Connecticut, saying that they are, harboring, folks who are, in the country illegally.

What do you have to say about John's, John's, commentary there?

Either of you can respond here.

If you don't mind.

One thing that go ahead for you talk about when it comes to protest is that there's always propaganda and there's propaganda and there's messaging and so this particular political administration in office right now has been using propaganda again and again, again, actually telling outright lies, fabricating data.

Talking about I mean, anybody would be afraid if you're saying there are murderers and rapists running the streets.

And so then people start repeating it.

Murderers, rapists run.

And then you look at the data and you're saying these people who are being attacked are not murderers and rapists, that they're they're attacking.

They're they're trying to drag out of the country.

These are people who are here, maybe undocumented.

Some of them that have been picked up by these have been U.S.

citizens.

And and then you have ice covering their faces as though their job is more dangerous than regular police officer who has a name and a badge and a number that people can recognize is not covering their face.

So I think ice is, you know, a part of law enforcement.

They're government employees.

They should be held to accountability.

Their job is going to be to, as been pointed out by this administration, to find undocumented people.

The way they're doing it, they have escalated the violence in the communities.

And, I think that's the fact that they keep referring so many people murderers, rapists, whatever.

It's almost like, you know, they're they're puppets, you know, and I'm not saying this about John to to insult him at all.

I'm just saying that when you have a president who is saying this administration keeps saying these things again and again, other people are going to repeat them.

But when you ask the administration that's been asked by many people in media, where are the numbers to back up what you're saying?

You don't see these numbers, but you've gotten people so afraid now that the country has become even more divided, not just around protest, but the basic reason for the protests in the first place is the action of Ice and the the fact that they hide their faces similar to the Ku Klux Klan.

And they they have all this power of the federal government, and the people have very little power because their federal government is not protecting them, that they we're being told that Ice is there to protect us, but we don't feel protected.

And that's what the government is not hearing.

And that's what the protesters are trying to tell the government.

You're on the wrong path, that what you're doing is, is, is taking violence to another level and instigating even more trouble than it would have been to have undocumented people, actually have to go before the courts, which is one of many of them we're doing in the first place.

And I'm sure a lot of I can talk more about that.

Powerful testimony there from Gloria as we are about to head to a break.

That's why I'm cutting off here and, jumping in, from Connecticut Public Radio.

This is the wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

A lot of building there of ACLU Connecticut and author and constitutional law professor Gloria J. Brown.

Marshall going to stick with us after the break.

More on how journalists are adapting to cover protests amid evolving federal policy is in the wheelhouse at Connecticut Public.

This is the wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

This hour we're talking about modern protests.

We're talking about it from the perspective of the protesters, the government and journalists.

Still with me.

Alana, builder of the ACLU Connecticut and author and constitutional law professor Gloria J. Brown.

Marshall.

And joining us now is Elisa munoz, the executive director of a group that trains newsrooms across America.

Connecticut public included on how to prepare for and cover protests.

Elisa is the executive director of the International Women's Media Foundation.

Elisa, thank you so much for being here.

Thank you.

What stands out to you folks as different with protests in 2020?

Give us a call 88872096778887209677.

You can also hit us up on our YouTube stream.

Gloria, Hartford Mayor I run an hour long alarm says local police are investigating the incident, where federal officials recently drove through a crowd in Hartford.

We have that incident following the fatal, fatal shooting of Renee Goode by an Ice agent in Minneapolis.

We asked a legal expert what would happen if that sort of scenario unfolded here.

And, state officials, we're talking about that.

That's actually a separate clip.

I'm not going to throw out of that one.

First, I'm going to talk about I apologize for that.

I want to talk about a different clip here.

Let's get a report that we had from one of our reporters here recently.

Danielle also covered that protest in Hartford.

Justice for justice for Renee.

Good morning.

The courtyard and sidewalk on Main Street were packed with peaceful protesters.

T light candles lit up the hands of many activists who spoke, called for unity against Ice and the Trump administration.

But halfway through the rally, one of the speakers had to make a sudden announcement.

I'm so sorry.

Ice is playing in the back of the building and the training people with pepper spray.

Immigration officials did not respond to a request for comment, but Alex Cuny says he and other protesters were attempting to stop what they thought was a detainee removal by Ice.

5 to 10 people stood here at the exit of the building, trying to block the car, taking someone.

They started pepper spraying people.

More people gradually.

Kept trickling in.

They kept pepper spraying people, I had water.

I'm wearing my bike riding glasses here.

I gave water to people, poured it on their face, and then they straight up rammed.

Their car and a big van behind it, right through the.

Crowd.

And knocked a person over.

A protester broke the window of the van as it drove off.

That is testimony we heard from some of the protesters who were there.

Danny Neitzel was there as well, as well as cameraman Mark Mirko, who was filming some of the action or taking pictures there as well.

What do you make of this?

Gloria and Alana, particularly after a January 16th order by a U.S.

district judge, ordered law enforcement to cease actions against peaceful protesters.

There's no kind of ability.

I mean, that's that's what people are protesting.

The lack of accountability, the failure to recognize constitutional rights.

The the idea that peaceful protesters are being attacked not by other civilians, but by law enforcement themselves.

Once again, I talk about the civil rights movement.

There seems to be this idea that the civil rights movement of what happened to African-Americans in this country is separate from the actions and reactions of protesters going on right now.

There's so much to be learned from that time period, so many similarities from what happened then when law enforcement has no accountability.

And at this point, when we're talking about self defense, the issue of violent and nonviolent protest is one in which in nonviolent protests, people are determined by their philosophy.

They're not going to respond to violence with violence.

But not everybody is is trained in not a violent protest.

Not everybody believes a nonviolent protest.

So people, are acting and reacting based on being attacked by their government.

Can you hear.

Me?

I think, and this is after, you know, Renee Good's killing it.

People are frustrated and confused, quite honestly.

Like, how can law officers act with impunity in their own videos on a national stage?

And I mean, frankly, the cynicism going on now for as I points out, this is nothing new.

But I you know, once again, we are asking the question of where is the accountability?

And I think that, of course, the protesters in Hartford were rightly, enraged by the fact that it seems like, you know, federal law enforcement can kill people and go on their merry way.

And I understand that rage very much.

I will say again, you know, there's there's a lot of there's the rule of law.

And that is what we're all trying in these protests, to, to to fight for, to the ticket, to uphold, to make a reality in this country.

And then there's a lot of the streets.

So I think it is important.

And I want to say this out loud, you know, for people to kind of figure out there what kind of risks they are comfortable with when protesting, and, and how they can, you know, stay calm, make sure that they really stay clear of the line of obstruction or interference, you know, in a way that will to make them feel comfortable.

Right.

You you cannot touch, you know, push hit officers.

That's that that's going to be and that's going to be hard to defend.

But but again, you can peaceably protest and that's that.

You know, we can't be afraid to protest because that the act of protest, you know.

The distinction.

That's, that's out there a. Lot of thank you so much for that, because the distinction is important there.

As a journalist, I must point out that, well, first of all, we hear what, the federal government is saying about this.

They're they're they're characterizing this as a mob of of agitators, radical agitators.

So there's the rhetoric there.

But I'm also going to say that, at some point in the incident, we don't know.

I don't know exactly when somebody else does, but, there, was perhaps this van that was broken into this window or whatever.

So I just want to bring that up just in case somebody can try to say that this isn't exactly, a peaceful protest, whatever.

In that regard.

But nonetheless, you have the fatal shooting of Rene.

Good.

By an Ice agent in Minneapolis.

We asked the legal expert what would happen if that sort of scenario unfolded here, and state officials felt compelled to ask, investigate.

Here's former state lawmaker Mike Lawler, acting associate dean of Lee College at the University of New Haven.

Every state is sovereign in its own right, and so a state can choose to pursue an investigation and potentially an arrest, and the feds can do the same thing.

Now, what the feds can do is make it difficult for the state to pursue an investigation, but they can't prevent it.

So they can't prevent it.

Either of you can impact that there, Alana or Gloria if you want to, but this came up in Indianapolis or.

Excuse me, in, in Minneapolis, where the, state government was talking about an investigation and federal government, probably didn't want interference there, from what it sounds like, from the rhetoric, what do you say a lot of.

Yeah.

It's tough.

I mean, it's, you know, there has been an erosion of, doctrine in the law, to uphold federal, officers that have employees accountable for civil rights violations and other violations.

And we've seen that over the past, you know, 60, 70 years now, where the Supreme Court has kind of, narrow the pathways to, to holding federal law enforcement accountable.

That's really, that that's reality.

On the other hand.

Yeah.

You kno there's like the Minnesota authorities are trying quite hard to figure out their ways to to prosecute, federal law enforcement.

They're trying to, under state law, under state criminal law on they're trying to figure out and they're trying to investigate.

And it sounds like, again, by all the news accounts, they're being imputed, doing so again, erosion of the rule of law, something that we should all in a democracy be really concerned about.

Why would federal authorities be stopping a state from trying to uphold its own criminal laws?

And, you know, again, that's why we're that's why we're protesting.

That's why we need to be protesting.

And and to John who called in earlier, I would I would say, John probably agree.

We disagree about a lot, that's for sure.

But we probably agree that, you know, this is a democracy and we want we want to have, the rights under our Constitution.

Right.

We want, our Fourth Amendment rights not to be searched and searched.

We want our First Amendment rights to be able to, to to protest and to to speak out into video protests, among other things, to be upheld.

Ice is not listening to that.

It is not listening to the law.

I cannot be clear.

All of these interactions are, really outside the law in a way that should concern anybody inside of the political spectrum.

Right?

This is our Constitution.

This is real.

Gloria, just really quickly here, if you can for us, why might states want to investigate this?

And what are you understanding in terms of how long it might take for all of this to to play out?

If there's a state of investigation, there's a federal investigation, and then maybe the courts have to intervene.

Well, it's going to be very difficult because this federal government has decided that it is going to use propaganda.

It's going to violate the law, is going to ignore the Constitution.

So if that's happening at the top and the Ice agents are working for that government, they are not going to respect the law.

They're not going to respect protesters, our constitutional rights.

And so in order to maintain, this, you know, regime of it and its police officers with masks on, that are Ice agents and we don't even know where they're coming from, who they are, what qualifications it took for them to become these, these agents and the fact that they're acting with impunity, they are the federal government impeding the state from having its own investigation.

And the state is seen as the enemy.

And so the federal government is not going to allow the state to have the full investigations that are needed to hold the ice ages accountable, because the Ice agents are doing what the federal government wants it to do, which is to terrorize people, terrorize communities, and make protesters feel is so dangerous, are not going to exercise their right of free speech and and assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And the power of the people is attempted to be undermined, but the people will continue to speak out because there's a lot of said they're upset, angry, and they're looking for the Constitution to be upheld when it's being ignored.

And that's the clash that's happening right now.

This is an issue dealing with a constitutional crisis and our democracy.

The NFL championships, the conference championships are this weekend.

So here's a football metaphor for you, Alyssa.

Get ready for the ball to come your way a lot here in the next few questions here.

As protests are continuing around the United States, how have media organizations tried to protect their journalists?

We just talked about here a situation where, folks that we know here in Hartford were, doused with pepper spray.

What can you offer here in the in the interim?

I think the truth is that journalists are under the same threats as the general public when it comes to these demonstrations, and that should not be the case.

I am not suggesting that, the general public should be under any kind of threat, but certainly there are particular protections for journalists.

Under press freedom, they should be able to document what is going on on the ground without being threatened, harassed or targeted.

So media organizations are having to adapt in real time to, crisis situation that is putting their journalists in real harm, physical harm.

And they are responding by calling organizations like the AMF to provide security training, to provide PPE, protective gear, to provide gas masks, and to teach journalists how to put them on, and to generally give journalists legal advice about how to, comport themselves and what their rights are on the ground, who they need to call if they are detained.

It's a very, very dangerous situation for journalists.

And I just I must add that it is important to consider who these journalists are, who are covering these Ice raids as well and these protests, because it matters what you look like, it matters who you are.

And those kinds of considerations are also being, considered in news organizations We talked about the threshold here, for, the general public.

Obviously, the journalists are held to a different standard.

You're here, or at least should be, to, federal law here.

So help us understand what the threshold might be for journalists in terms of any advice that you could give them to sort of do their job and maybe not, get in trouble while on the field?

Go ahead.

While the advice that we've given journalists has actually had to be adapted and changed throughout this situation.

And so, for example, where we normally would tell journalists, you know, you don't need to carry your passport, we're now telling journalists, carry your passport where we would tell maybe a journalist who was here under other kinds of, visas, etc.. We're telling them, carry your documentation and show your documentation.

So that's one change.

But the other change is, for example, don't go wearing tactical gear because that is signaling that your intentions are bad instead of protective measures.

We are also giving journalists tactical advice in terms of how to interact in this crowd, how much time to spend in the heart of the conflict, as opposed to on the back end of the conflict.

Working with your fellow journalists, which I know is not necessarily coming natural to most journalists who are competitors, but it's important to have a buddy system talking to their editors about where they are, how long they should stay there, when they should decide to leave the scene.

It's increasingly difficult for them to document what is going on the ground and to perform the role that they uphold in our communities, which is to hold the powerful to account.

One of the things that struck me in the in the training that I received is that what journalists may face out in the field, what the general public may face out in the field, in our training, came across as rubber bullets all the way up to the bullet that may be found or used in an AR 15, and your of sort of having to go around the country and tell journalists that this is a, a real threat that's out there.

So one of the things that can protect you is tactical gear.

I've seen some of the vests that you, have have been able to tell people about, but obviously many of them may not be able to protect you from an AR style rifle.

Nonetheless, the guidance is ever evolving here.

You're saying that folks may not necessarily, focus on the tactical gear because it may give off a different sort of vibe to these federal law enforcement that are out there and sort of, enforcing the law at this point.

Indeed, I the advice that we're giving journalists today is similar to the advice that we were giving journalists around the world covering war zones.

And unfortunately, those situations are ever changing and journalists know their communities.

I know the situation on the ground.

We take note and speak at length before we conduct one of these trainings.

You may have been interviewed before you, participated in the training to really find out what's going on on the ground and it is a fine line that journalists are having to walk in terms of their role, within these protests as observers, when they may be perceived as participants or are willingly, treated as participants.

We received an email from a journalist which is, observing and documenting the protests in Minneapolis, and he told us that he was teargassed three times in one morning.

So that is the kind of situation that journalists are facing, making it obviously extremely difficult and dangerous to perform their duties to our communities.

I want to also talk about, the digital footprint that we may leave behind.

This is something that you also talk about.

I myself have updated several past, passwords, things like that.

After the training, and learning about my digital footprint.

Why is this important for reporters?

Even protesters, your phone and what you do with your phone when you're out at a protest.

Can you just help us understand why this might be an important for folks?

Absolutely.

And this is one of the biggest changes that we've seen in the country in the past year, is the increased use of surveillance technology during these protests.

It really makes your hair stand on.

And when you hear about this facial recognition that is giving, police and law enforcement real time connection into an individual's, social media activities into where they live, license plate readers.

So journalists are really up against extremely advanced technology, and it's very hard to keep up with the technology that is being used against them.

You can be in a, demonstration area and have your phone tracked, your location tracked, your identity known, your home address found.

And so part of the training that we are giving journalists are ways to mitigate, the damage that having that kind of information in the public eye can lead to in terms of being targeted and being followed and being pursued by law enforcement.

One last question I want to throw to you here, here.

I apologize for giving you the ball so much here.

Hopefully you're having a sip of water or something like that as I am here.

I appreciate the.

Questions nonetheless, but, you got to help us out with one more thing here.

Considerations before and after the protests.

Local, state and federal investigation of protests and now federal investigations of journalists.

What do you make, Elisa, of the FBI search of a Washington reporter's home, Washington Post reporter's home, and what Poynter says is, quote, rare and part of a growing problem, unquote.

This is a ratcheting up of the stakes.

It's a watershed moment for journalists to have their homes searched for information about their sources.

There are a lot of legal experts contemplating what this means for press freedom and for individual journalists.

It's my understanding that this Washington Post reporter was not the target of the investigation.

And nevertheless, her home was raided and her devices were seized.

It's it's an escalation.

It's extremely worrying.

And it's one more threat that journalists are facing.

This journalist was lucky.

She is, working for the Washington Post.

It has its legal resources and ample protections for her.

But there are many journalists working out there on their own for small news organizations, and they need equal support and opportunity to protect their journalists, and themselves as organizations.

From Connecticut Public Radio.

This is the wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

We're out of time for these first two segments.

We had a terrific conversation.

I wish I could speak to the three of you all day.

Tremendous conversation.

Gloria Jay Brown Marshall, Emmy Award winning author and professor of constitutional law at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

There's that book right next to a protest history of the United States.

Look for that on the web.

Thank you so much for coming on the show, Gloria.

Thank you.

A lot of building there.

A staff attorney with ACLU Connecticut.

Alanna, thank you so much for coming on the show today.

Thanks for having me.

And we'll keep in touch with you as well.

A lot of and Elise, Elise Munoz, the executive director of the International Women's Media Foundation.

Elisa, thank you once again for your help.

Thank you.

After the break, we're going to talk to three student journalists or, excuse me, two of them, about what they're seeing at protests on a local college campus.

Questions for them or maybe even a reaction.

Give us a call 887209677.

It's the wheelhouse.

The Connecticut public.

If you want to talk to us, you got two calls now.

More wheelhouse.

After this.

Got nurses heading home.

Thank you very much.

At the Joe's American Bar.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Say a man.

Is but is wrong.

It's morning in.

America.

No, I'm all set.

But I can't see the door.

This is the wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

Talk to all our about changing views of protests in America in 2026.

And now we're going to try to get some reaction from student journalists.

Miles Prince off Berlitz continues the incredibly important work of student journalists making our young people heard.

Miles is an outgoing coeditor in chief of the Wesleyan Argus.

Miles, thank you so much for being here.

Thank you so much for having me, Frankie.

Thomas Lyons joins Miles as the fall editor in chief of The Argus.

Thomas seeks to make student voices heard worldwide.

Thomas thanks so much for being here.

Thanks for having us.

Folks, if you're, wanting to call in, give us a call right now.

(888)720-9677.

We'll try to get a call in.

Might be more of a comment in this point, as we're about five minutes to the end of er or something like that.

Thomas, you were one of the fall editors in chief here.

Before I get sort of the idea of what's happening on campus and if there's any kind of reaction to what's happening, sort of nationally here.

Can you both, unpack what you just heard?

And if there was anything that was rather helpful to your reporting, or at least something that you want to comment on that is going similar for you.

Were you able to hear the segment, Thomas?

I was not I was in the waiting room.

What about you, Myles?

Were you able to hear it?

Yeah, I was, and I think it's really interesting, hearing about the precautions that journalists are going are having to take in in cities like Minneapolis.

Possibly Chicago, which is actually my hometown.

And I'm feeling both grateful that at Wesleyan and Middletown, we haven't had to take the same extreme precautions.

Certainly some of the things like digital surveillance are on our mind.

But considering, you know, the bulletproof vests that journalists are wearing in Minneapolis, the gas masks, things like that.

I'm grateful for that.

And it's really interesting to hear, the challenges that journalists are facing and the bravery of them in, in, in bigger cities.

Thomas, are you seeing any kind of reaction, to what's happening nationally on campus?

Is there any kind of student protest or any concern being, raised from student organizations?

Certainly.

I mean, our spring term is just now starting, and so I'm not even I'm driving back to campus today.

But certainly in the fall, we saw a lot of protest activity against Ice, against these increasing deportations.

And, so certainly rising students are very vocal and tuned in to the national scene, both online and then in person.

Can you give us an example of how this might play out?

I think about the University of Connecticut, because that's where I went to.

Sometimes you see a lot of people that gather, if you're really unfamiliar with source, there's Gambol Pavillion, and then there's sort of a courtyard there that people may gather.

Can you help paint a picture of where people might be at at Wesleyan, or is this something that might happen online?

Where might somebody gather if they really care about an issue?

In Middletown, at Wesleyan?

Sure.

Oftentimes people are organizing in front of a used in University center, which is a very central focal point on campus or directly outside President Michael Roth's office on College Row.

I think, last year, students staged sit ins in President Roth's office.

And so when people are in person, it is oftentimes in the central areas.

Last spring, of course, there was an encampment right around the UC and organized, University Center.

And so people are in-person, often on campus.

The policies may be evolving or changing, as, some of these things happen.

I know that, at least at the University of Connecticut, I was saying there was, folks that were commenting on, what was happening between Israel and Gaza.

Excuse me, the conflict there and there were protests, but some of the students were concerned about their if there were an international student, like a visa or something like that.

Are you having to adopt any of your, any changes to some of your standards?

At the paper at the Argus, is there anything that you're having to do to sort of maybe protect the identity of students or something like that?

Your sources?

Yeah, certainly.

I mean, we have had to extend our anonymity, protections to many international students this fall.

We helped to standardize our anonymity policy and, both for sources and then also for reporters.

Our staff has a lot of really incredible, determined international students on our masthead.

And sometimes if, say, they are covering, I don't know, something about the Israel-Gaza.

Or something related to the Trump administration.

An international student might report on that issue and then give that byline to maybe a co-writer or another U.S.

citizen on an asset.

And so in that way, is what we're both extending our anonymity for sources and then also for reporters themselves.

Myles, your thoughts quickly on on having to change this, or at least the conversations that you, Thomas, are having and some of the other folks that are sort of on the masthead with you all, managing the paper.

Yeah, absolutely.

It's it's certainly been a balance.

We want our readership to always know who our sources are, particularly if they're central to a story we want them to know if we're granting them anonymity, why we're doing that, what their role is loosely.

I think that's crucial.

I mean, we've been able to maintain that while also, extending anonymity to people who are afraid of, you know, being targeted by the federal government being fired from their job.

Anything along those lines, the types of attacks and targeting that we've seen, in the last year of the Trump administration.

Is everything okay with international students on campus?

You talked about, having to change maybe a byline if it's necessary and or at least having to, to maybe give it to somebody else.

You're talking about the policies.

How generally are international students faring on campus at this time?

I would say it's it's a complex question.

I don't want to answer for international students as I'm not one.

But to me, it seems that the federal government is targeting international students, unfairly and potentially illegally.

They are essentially wielding unlimited power to revoke student visas, of international students.

And if I were an international student, I would be very worried about speaking out politically against the federal government.

They're very little protections to stop their student visas from being revoked.

And if that happens, you know, they can potentially fight it in court, but it is an individualized, expensive battle.

And it's one that a lot of international students do not want to delve into.

One last question.

As we finish up here, Tom, I see you got some incoming, editors in chief coming in here.

What's your advice for folks here?

As we, move on to 2026 here in covering the news at Wesleyan in about 20 or 30s, if you can give us that.

I mean, I think as much as more of a scary political moment, the newsroom for me has always been a place of joy and discovery.

And so as much as we can share important political stories and highlight the the joy of of Wesleyan students, all the amazing things that are doing that balance feels really crucial.

Really cool to hear from Thomas and Myles.

Thank you so much for coming on the show.

Thomas Lyons, outgoing coeditor, chief from the Wesleyan Argus, as well as Myles Pence off Burleigh Wits today's show produced by Tali Richardson.

It was edited by Patrick Scahill.

Our technical producer is Dylan Reyes.

Tess terrible was on the phone.

Thank you so much for all the work that you did here today.

Tess.

Megan Fitzgerald, A special happy birthday to her as well.

Connecticut Public's Visuals team and our operations staff, Megan Boone as well.

For all of her work, download the wheelhouse anytime on your favorite podcast app.

I'm Frankie Graziano, this is the wheelhouse.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.