One of the key points this analysis fails to mention is that Reyes is an independent journalist, publishing content of public interest about government transparency, so the First Amendment implications extend not only to freedom of speech/expression but also freedom of press.<p>Why does that matter?<p>"That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society," wrote Justice Potter Stewart in Houchins v. KQED, Inc. (1978)<p>In that ruling, the court noted that journalists do not enjoy privileged access -- that is, they don't enjoy _greater_ access to government-run spaces than the general public. But neither do they enjoy _less_ access. So if it is permitted for a member of the public to be in a particular location, then it is permitted for a member of the press to be in that location as well.<p>All of the concerns raised about privacy implications, such as Reyes' potentially recording the location of security cameras in the lobby, are a red herring. A person with nefarious intent could very easily surreptitiously record that information without detection, or could merely jot down the details on a notepad and then disseminate them. But Reyes films conspicuously to highlight the absurdity of these supposed privacy violations. The Supreme Court has held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, and the government has a duty to _create_ privacy for private information, such as keeping sensitive documents outside of public view, or blocking the public's view of restricted areas, since merely viewing a restricted area from a publicly accessible area is legal, for as the law says, "the eye cannot trespass."