Story perspectives

SP Journalists Condemn Rep. Harris for Removing Reporter

By Drooid · Oct 15, 2026, 6:10 PM UTC · How we work

Summary

Andy Harris Silences Reporter

Rep. Andy Harris called audience members and a reporter rude during a Maryland debate.
He blamed rising diesel prices on Democratic environmental regulations, prompting laughter from the crowd.
After the debate, Harris refused a reporter’s question, citing Maryland’s two-party consent law, then ordered police to remove the reporter.
The League of Women Voters, which moderated the debate, urged candidates to ask supporters to remain civil.

Summary

Jeremy Eldridge Clarifies Law

Attorney Jeremy Eldridge said Maryland’s two-party consent law does not apply in public press settings.
Dean Rafael Lorente defended Cat Murphy’s right to record in that context.
Society of Professional Journalists condemned Harris’s threats, urging journalists to work without intimidation.
Freedom Forum attorney Kevin Goldberg asserted the law protects reporters in public venues and cannot be denied.

History

Historical Context

In 1928 the Supreme Court upheld wiretaps in Olmstead, but the 1967 Katz decision—an 8-1 ruling authored by Justice Potter Stewart—created a reasonable expectation of privacy. Maryland’s two-party consent statute, enacted decades later, is now invoked by Rep. Andy Harris to bar journalist Cat Murphy from recording a public debate, reviving the privacy-press clash.

1 of 3

Andy Harris Silences Reporter

Rep. Andy Harris called audience members and a reporter rude during a Maryland debate.
He blamed rising diesel prices on Democratic environmental regulations, prompting laughter from the crowd.
After the debate, Harris refused a reporter’s question, citing Maryland’s two-party consent law, then ordered police to remove the reporter.
The League of Women Voters, which moderated the debate, urged candidates to ask supporters to remain civil.

1 / 3