Journalists Face Jail Time After Reporting on North Dakota Pipeline Protest (techcrunch.com) 357
Investigative reporter and co-founder of Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman, is now facing riot charges in the state of North Dakota after her report on a Native American-led pipeline protest there went viral on Facebook. From a TechCrunch report:Democracy Now! issued a statement about the new charges against Goodman late Saturday. Goodman's story, posted to Facebook on September 4th, has been viewed more than 14 million times on the social media platform, Democracy Now! said, and was picked up by mainstream media outlets and networks including CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and The Huffington Post. Additionally, documentary filmmaker Deia Schlosberg, is facing felony and conspiracy charges that could carry a 45-year sentence for filming at the protest, IndieWire reports.
Get it MFers? (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Dissent. Allowed.
Re:Get it MFers? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is it Reporters covering real injustice are put in jail for inciting riots but race-baiters like al sharpton get off scott-free for inciting riots and inciting police murders?
Wtf?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or a Trump supporter making direct threats to take out Clinton?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasne... [buzzfeed.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny thing: it was Repub HQ that was fire bombed.
Re: (Score:3)
And it was Dems that gave most of the money to repair it. $0 from Trump, even though he used it to rail against Hillary.
Re:Get it MFers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get it MFers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well the real question is what are the details that may not be in the story?
Journalists tend to protect themselves so to expect full reporting on what the journalist may had done in excess of just covering it, may be left out.
I know this is circular reasoning but I would like to figure out the other side before I go all crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
In Schlosberg's case, the charges don't even make sense. For example, theft of property or service. Do they allege that she stole the pipeline? Or that she caused it to carry her own crude oil without paying?
As for Goodman, here's the video [facebook.com].
Re:Get it MFers? (Score:4, Informative)
actually [uslegal.com], no:
Theft of service is defined by state laws, which vary by state, but typically define the crime as knowingly securing the performance of a service by deception or threat, diverting another's services to the actor's own benefit, or holding personal property beyond the expiration of rental period without consent of the owner. Intent to avoid payment may be presumed under certain circumstances, such as failure to pay for an applicable rental charge within 10 days after receiving written notice demanding payment.
So unless she herself utilized the pipeline (that is, made it carry her own crude oil), she did not commit theft of service. Theft of service is most commonly charged when you bypass your electric meter, hook your cable back up, or alter the configuration of your cable box to see channels you don't pay for. It was also a popular charge connected with blue boxing a long distance phone call. In all cases because you took steps to use a service without intent to pay for it.
Perhaps YOU should do the looking up next time.
Re: (Score:3)
"The new charge comes after the prosecutor dropped criminal trespassing charges. State’s Attorney Ladd R. Erickson filed the new charges on Friday before District Judge John Grinsteiner who will decide on Monday (October 17) whether probable cause exists for the riot charge. Goodman has travelled to North Dakota to face the charges and will appear at Morton County court on Monday at 1:30 p.m. local time (CDT) if the charges are approved. "I came back to North Dakota to fight a trespass charge. They sa
Re:Get it MFers? (Score:4, Informative)
Have you looked at any of these videos? The few I've seen look a lot less like protests and more like sieges. Some of the "protestors" have literally broken into pipeline facilities using bolt cutters and started turning valves to disrupt the system. The specific case I believe where this reporters charges are based was from what I have seen several hundred people attacking a pipeline crew (from the clip I saw it looked like one woman tried to break through a line of workers, they tackled her, and protesters swarmed on the workers throwing punches/kicks and chasing them on horseback). If she was merely there as an observer then the charges should be tossed, if she was a part of the acts then she was about as much of a reporter as someone videotaping a dog fight to make a promo video for it. Protesting allows you to make your discontent known by marching and speaking out, not breaking/entering and assault.
Re:Get it MFers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel like I'm not getting the full picture here
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
In that part of the country they have laws intended to suppress reporting of negative things about agribusiness and such. The reporter might have run afoul of one of those.
Whatever the excuse, hopefully it will get bitch slapped by the Supremes and struck down.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
In that part of the country they have laws intended to suppress reporting of negative things about agribusiness and such. The reporter might have run afoul of one of those.
Whatever the excuse, hopefully it will get bitch slapped by the Supremes and struck down.
It appears that the protesters were attempting to shut down pipeline pumping stations, and the charges against (at least in the filmaker's case) are "conspiracy to 'X'" type charges where the actual protesters were charged with "committing 'X'" type charges outright.
It appears that the government's position in practice is that if a journalist suspects the subjects he is reporting on may commit a crime, the journalist is obligated to report them to authorities or face conspiracy charges.
Hope everyone enjoyed that "freedom of the press" stuff while it lasted. Remember, a vote for anything other than (D) or (R) is a wasted vote!
Strat
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, a vote for anything other than (D) or (R) is a wasted vote!
And a vote for (D) or (R) is a wasted vote. The Deep State will continue on its course, completely unaffected.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree, as I suspect someone else might if he were alive today.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." - George Washington's farewell address, September 17, 1796 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... [wikisource.org]
Strat
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
Or is the surveillance/police state fine, as long as it's not run by Democrats?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So Bush repudiated FDR's example and took the high road? So Trump would do that if elected?
Where did I say or imply any of that?
Both parties are and have been horrid for many decades. No matter who wins this election we all lose if it's a choice between (R) or (D).
Strat
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I rarely reply to my own posts, but I felt that this was worth pointing out because it's so amazing.
Whenever arguments over the Constitution come up (particularly the 2nd Amendment) there are those who argue that the authors could not anticipate the modern world.
However, this portion of Washington's farewell address:
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
It's like the man was reading our current news headlines!
Science, medicine, and technology have advanced tremendously, but basic human nature remains little-changed since we first started using tools. The founders knew and recognized this and so designed a system of government that used those human tendencies in a balanced leverage against itself. That system has since been altered by those seeking power & wealth such that the balance required is gone, and so we get what we currently have.
Strat
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? Did you watch the video that they're claiming is evidence of Goodman participating in a riot? Protesters were trying to stop bulldozers. They went over a fence and then a bunch of security goons pulled up and sicced dogs on them while spraying them with mace.
They originally tried to charge the protesters with trespassing, but apparently the fence was not properly marked to make that charge stick, so now they've changed it to 'rioting'. Anyhow, it wasn't that Goodman interviewed some people who seemed likely to commit a crime. She was there with a camera crew when they went over the fence, and she covered the story. I don't know what it takes to convict a person of rioting in North Dakota, but I'd be pretty surprised if the charges are not dismissed.
Re: (Score:3)
It appears that the government's position in practice is that if a journalist suspects the subjects he is reporting on may commit a crime, the journalist is obligated to report them to authorities...
I wasn't there, so I can't do anything besides speculate. Was she inside the fence with the people attempting to shut off a pipeline valve? (unrelated, don't do that. It's fucking stupid) Or was she standing on public property filming? One of those would make her an accomplice, the other wouldn't.
If the cops roll up on a bank robbery in progress and you were found in the building with the people doing the robbing I'd suspect the cops aren't going to let you go because you had a video camera and claime
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, you're right, but if anything they'd hold you as a material witness, not charge you with robbery. Particularly if you had the press credentials and career accolades that Amy Goodman has.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A plausible theory. In the absence of any details (which we do not have), it is also plausible that the entire protest was staged for the cameras, at her instigation, which would, indeed, make her a conspirator (assuming the protest committed a crime).
I doubt we'll ever get enough detail to tell.
(You're right about sketchy laws in some parts of the country, but the pipeline protestors have engaged in organized violence against the pipeline before. I suspect it's more of a pox on all their houses situation.)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws against reporting things tend to run afoul of the First Amendment.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stomping on the Constitution seems to be a bi-partisan thing ever since 9-11. I once believed in the Republican party but then Bush took over from Reagan and it's been all downhill from there. Secret Warrants? Secret Courts? WTF? All that shit has been cheerfully abused by whichever party is in power with the full collusion of the "opposition" party.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the excuse, hopefully it will get bitch slapped by the Supremes and struck down.
Since the bitch will get to choose the Supremes and remove last vestiges of the pretense of a rule of law, nope.
Too bad the Republicans blew their chance to have a semi-moderate judge appointed to the Supreme Court, but they decided to bet everything on red and it landed on green (well, orange might be better fore the analogy with Trump) and will probably end up with another liberal appointment, completely changing the polarity of the Supreme Court for at least the next decade or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Your party put the first nail in the coffin for rule of law, not mine.
Newsflash: I'm neither a Democrite nor a Repugnicunt. Hell, I'm even not an American. I'm just interested in these affairs as they have an enormous effect on my country too.
Re: (Score:3)
Halt -- nope. Erode them only at a moderately slow pace, as opposed to Hillary's all-out rush, hopefully. Remind me who called your constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" and which party he belonged to. Yet even that person tried to make it appear he heeds the law -- breaches of the 1st Amendment were few, of 2nd limited to state level, those of 4th were held in deep secret.. On the other hand, Hillary promised wholesale scrapping of 1st and 2nd, without even bothering to formally repeal them, a
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, here is what the AG told the local paper [bismarcktribune.com]:
“She’s a protester, basically. Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions,” said Erickson, adding that her coverage of the Sept. 3 protest did not mention that people trespassed during the incident or the alleged assaults on guards.
In other words, he doesn't believe this person covered the government's position fairly, and therefore doesn't deserve to be considered a journalist.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. That's exactly what China says when they shut up reporters too.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike China, we have a legal system that involves a jury who must agree she is guilty before the charge sticks. Also, if a charge is wrongfully pressed she can sue for that too.
This isn't a case of a journalist being 100% innocent and being arrested just because someone doesn't like her views. This is a case of a journalist allegedly willfully trespassing.
Even when journalists are doing good things and for good reasons they still have to follow the law. They have no immunity, nor should they.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
You should review the saying "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". Pressing charges that will never stick is a popular way of punishing inconvenient people.
And actually, they dropped the tresspassing charges after she traveled to answer them (suggesting that they didn't actually believe they could convict), but made sure to press a new charge to start the process all over again.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
This AG needs to be smacked with a civil rights violation charge and lawsuit.
They first charged Amy Goodman with criminal trespass. The AG had to drop the charge, because it was laughably bogus, as I will demonstrate below.
This is how dumb this AG is:
1. The Native Americans wanted her there. /buy it/ instead of going the cheap route and getting easements.
2. It's their land.
3. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN EASEMENT DOESN'T MEAN YOU OWN THE FUCKING LAND. If you want to own the land under a pipeline, fucking
Ergo, there was no fucking trespass, let alone /criminal/ trespass.
There are no charges for assault with a deadly weapon against the "security" idiots for using /dogs/ against the protesters.
This AG doesn't even fucking understand simple trespass. Where did he get his law degree? From a Cracker Jack box?
And now he "doesn't consider her a journalist" because he doesn't like her attitude. THAT DOES NOT NULLIFY AMY GOODMAN'S FUCKING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, YOU IDIOT.
Amy Goodman got $100k out of the last time her civil rights were violated. She should go after the AG /personally/.
--
BMO
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
A landlord can commit trespass on property rented or leased to another in many states. Just because you own the property doesn't make you immune to trespass charges. The fact that someone vaguely associated with you owns the property in no way protects your from trespass charges.
The first amendment gives you no right to trespass, riot, cause damage, or assemble in any way other than "peaceably".
Journalists are just people. People have first amendment rights. Journalists are not nobility, not aristocrats, no matter how much they like to image that. They have the same rights as anyone else, no special privilege.
And the rights of an ordinary person should be enough, assuming she wasn't actually committing crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Second question, again, honest question. What does it take to be a bonafide journalist? If I'm recording a video of some act with the intent of publishing it on youtube am I afforded the same protections that a "real journalist" would be?
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
It's still trespass if a journalist does it. They don't have any extra rights as an individual than any other citizen.
It's why Paparazzi aren't allowed on a celeb's property, and hang from trees on the street to get a better view- or rent space overlooking their homes. If they could they would sneak onto their property legally.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I'll answer your questions to the best of my ability.
(1) Sure reporters can be charged with trespass -- when they actually commit trespass. Trespass is normally a tort [wikipedia.org] and it is up to the land owner to pursue civil action; the AG has no standing in such cases. There is also criminal trespass, e.g., if you enter a property with the intent of committing certain crimes. It is a misdemeanor and the standards vary by jurisdiction; however it's pretty clear that the protesters' action did not meet the local standards for criminal trespass because the AG dropped those charges.
(2) To be a journalist you have to engage in journalism. It doesn't have to be good journalism, or even fair journalism. It has to be intended as gathering and reporting facts.
Why does that intent matter? Because intent is one of the key ingredients in establishing guilt for a crime. You can't accidentally murder someone, although you can be deliberately negligent for example. So let's imagine the protesters *did* riot. If you were along with the mob with the intent of being part of the mob, you share criminal responsibility for the riot. If you were along with the mob with the intent of documenting what the mob does, you only bear responsibility for your own actions (e.g. the trespass tort).
So the AG's argument amounts to this: the person in question was sympathetic to the protesters, therefore she was one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2 of 3 sources are the defendant, an activist (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah I don't know what exactly happened, but I do see that two of the three links in the summary point to "Democracy Now!", an activist group founded by the defendant. That's about as objective as reporting about Trump's past based on what's donaldjtrump.com says about it.
Not only is is linking to one side of the story, but Amy Goodman and her Democracy Now! organization routinely describe their activities as "war". "All's fair in love and war", they say, and since she describes what she does as "war" tha
She did nothing wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Other than piss of people with a shit ton of money and expose their illegal activities.
Re:She did nothing wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more-correct to say she did nothing illegal, and I'm not sure on the details. What I've heard on the matter is she grossly-violated journalistic ethic--which is not illegal. A lot of people are pushing the story that she was ignoring any arguments for the pipeline and soliciting opinions to build a case against the pipeline--i.e. rather than "investigative journalism" she was building a sensation piece and willfully-misrepresenting the situation. Again, that's not illegal; and I don't have enough information on the situation to say what was actually going on.
I've had issue with bullshit "investigative journalism" houses like ProPublica before (ProPublica's gross-misrepresentation of facts to generate ad revenue has actually hurt the most vulnerable of people and caused misappropriation of public funds in pointless Congressional investigations). No clue on if Goodman is going the same way or if people are full of shit.
Re:She did nothing wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
rather than "investigative journalism" she was building a sensation piece and willfully-misrepresenting the situation.
CNN does that shit now with their BLM race baiting. Their pattern is to present the most sensational version of uncorroborated witness testimony as confirmed fact, while ignoring there even exists an alternative interpretation of the events. This is what led to the murder of 5 cops in Dallas. When they reported on the Philando Castille shooting over and over and over again they would state the girlfriend's story (pulled over for a broken taillight) without question while never mentioning reality (the police radio recording of the officer saying he was pulling him over for matching the description of an armed robber). Obviously any shooting of a suspect who wasn't trying to shoot at the cops is a tragedy, but "man matching the description of an armed robbery suspect shot during investigation" is far less inflammatory than "racist cop shoots kindly black man over broken taillight." A few days later the Dallas shooter cited this case as one of the motivations for his attack. I wonder if he knew about the armed robbery?
It's unlikely Wolf Blitzer will ever be held responsible for his crimes, though.
Re:She did nothing wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Surely, you jest.
http://www.breitbart.com/ [breitbart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is whether a journalist was documenting (journalism) the protest or marketing (marketing) the protest. Pushing a political agenda by misreporting is a violation of ethic.
Parent suggests violation of ethic might change your legal status, but I don't believe that's true. The Press is subject to libel and slander laws as well as to any behavior which incites violence or otherwise causes harm--to the full implication of being subject to laws and lawsuits. The right to peaceful assembly is not sp
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than piss of people with a shit ton of money and expose their illegal activities.
That's the only crime that matters in America.
Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
You know - I'm not even really against the pipeline. IMHO the protesters are over blowing the concerns and construction should have been going ahead.
THAT SAID - the way the authorities have been treating the protesters is absolutely mind boggling. They have a right to protest - and people have a right to film it. Trumping up "riot" charges because you don't like what they're saying is not just sour grapes - it's unconstitutional.
I'm not even sure about my position on the pipeline itself anymore, but everyone involved in the handling of the protests should be either voted out/recalled if elected, or fired if not elected.
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
I was in favor of the pipeline until this all started happening. Now? Fuck 'em: Hope they lose their goddamn shirts. Because their investment isn't worth more than the first amendment right to protest, and the first amendment right to report.
either or (Score:2, Flamebait)
I hope a flaming oil train derails in your backyard Karl Cocknozzle.
Re: (Score:3)
Would that be a difference to a pipeline bursting and exploding in his backyard?
Or are you simply glad that the pipeline won't run through your backyard?
wow, awesome IDs guys, really (Score:3, Funny)
I was merely wishing Karl Cocknozzle a enjoyable Monday evening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel very similarly.
Let the protesters protest. If they just took an indifferent approach, I don't think there would be any kind of a problem outside of local politics. People have a short attention span. A month down the road and people would be like 'what pipeline? oh yeah... how'd that turn out anyway?'. Instead, they have tapped in to the outrage machine of big government trying to gag the little guy.... that is a much more dangerous nerve to tread on....
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
THAT SAID - the way the authorities have been treating the protesters is absolutely mind boggling. They have a right to protest - and people have a right to film it.
They do not have a right to protest on private land. They don't have the right to obstruct construction crews with their protest. They certainly don't have the right to claim to be about "Democracy Now" based on the opinion of a few thousand (?) unelected protesters to overrule the US Congress and the State of North Dakota (plus a Federal Court and the Army Corps of Engineers).
They certainly definitely don't have the right to break into pipeline control systems and start turning valves [reuters.com].
I don't support punitive jail sentences for any of them, but at the same time I don't support the idea that if you have enough people, you can obstruct things you don't approve of (Planned Parenthood?!) and then hide behind the First Amendment. You have the freedom to express yourself, but no one has to listen or give a shit.
Re: (Score:3)
All of which says nothing about the reporter supposedly covering it, who was apparently tarred with the same brush. Was she in there turning valves, too?
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just FYI. The protestors are Native Americans. They're just enjoying a bit of payback.
Pray they don't start handing out blankets.
She's not charged for being a journalist (Score:5, Insightful)
She's charged for taking part in the riot - the evidence? She filmed herself trespassing on private property along with the rioters, filmed it, then turned around and claimed she's immune because she's a journalist.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you, I was too lazy to read the article and figured there had to be more to this story. It almost made me read the original article. Now I don't have to.
Yeah, if I robbed a bank as part of a gang and told the police that I was only along for the ride as a journalist and should be immune from charges, I kinda expect they'd not let me go. Can't feel too sorry for the journalist if she was actively trespassing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, if I robbed a bank as part of a gang and told the police that I was only along for the ride as a journalist and should be immune from charges, I kinda expect they'd not let me go. Can't feel too sorry for the journalist if she was actively trespassing.
Is your day job robbing banks or reporting news? Her day job is being a journalist, not protesting. She was there to cover the protest and protesters. If a reporter is embedded with solders and those solders commit a crime, is the reporter also guilty? Are they responsible for not stopping the crime?
Reporters are, for good or bad, only supposed to cover events, not be part of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if I robbed a bank as part of a gang and told the police that I was only along for the ride as a journalist and should be immune from charges, I kinda expect they'd not let me go.
What if you were covering a protest as a journalist? As I mentioned elsewhere the AG has dropped trespassing charges against Goodman, so how he thinks he can make rioting charges stick is beyond me. Maybe he's hoping that the more sensational-sounding charge will result in reverse jury nullification.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you were covering a protest as a journalist?
Sounds like she wasn't charged with being in a protest, which is a legal activity. She was charged with trespassing and rioting. Admittedly, I haven't read the article, but if she was trespassing on someone's property she deserves to be arrested. Journalists don't have legal rights to trespass. If someone were doing a story on you, they wouldn't be able to march in your house and sneak under your bed.
Similarly, rioting is not protesting. If you start acting violent or start destroying property you are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trespass is not equal to or tantamount to rioting, otherwise you wouldn't need two separate crimes.
In point of fact the AG dropped the trespass charge against Goodman. His argument for the riot charge is that she did not fairly (in his view) cover both sides and therefore was not engaged in journalism. You can judge for yourself by watching the video in question [facebook.com].
Re: (Score:2)
And if she did not commit rioting she should be found "Not Guilty", that's how the legal system works... ... and if the lawsuit was frivolous or wrongful, those responsible should be charged appropriately.
I don't have facebook, so can't see video. Sounds like the original trespass charge was an open/shut case but there might not be enough evidence of rioting.
Re: (Score:2)
His argument for the riot charge is that she did not fairly (in his view) cover both sides and therefore was not engaged in journalism. You can judge for yourself by watching the video in question [facebook.com].
By that argument, FoxNews is guilty of inciting riots, as is MSNBC. That's not a reasonable standard.
45 for her job. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Though I do think Snowden's tweet is ironic, he got 30 for hundreds of govt secrets to protect the common man and she might get 45 for doing her job.
Isn't it the NSA's job to protect our communications? Seems like Snowden was doing the job too well.
surprising lack of coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The large-media coverage on this has been near nonexistent. NYTimes is carrying one AP wire story about it, but no editorial comment. CNN has literally *nothing*. This has been news for weeks (thought the charges were changed from trespassing (after it seemed hard to make that stick) to rioting). Rolling Stone had been reporting on it, but really? Why do I have to get important political news from a music mag (or from, say, a tech website)? Why do I hear so much more about Trumps hand size and sexual escapades than I do about obstruction of freedom of the press? I mean, yeah, I know why, really (a generation fed on intellectual pap); just whining, I guess. Now GTF off my lawn, 'k?
Because the press doesn't care anymore. James O'Keefe broke a story today with video evidence of Hillary's campaign working illegally to create violence at Trump protests and the media won't report it. Wikileaks has broken so much info the last 3 weeks that Hillary should already be under indictment but the press won't report it.
If you look at who runs the news orgs, every single one of them are either a brother of a DNC operative or married to a DNC operative. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Who's in power right now? A
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn Democrats (Score:2)
That liberal North Dakota government is trying to take away our First Amendment rights. Thanks a lot, Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no good guys.
Trespassing to get the story. (Score:2)
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-me... [rcfp.org]
I don't think being a journalist allows you to trespass. However, if there were to be such an exemption, I would expect that it would only be given if the journalist were truly just a neutral observe.
misleading headline (Score:2)
I have no trouble believing that police got hostile to people with cameras. At the same time, it's also possible that the Democracy Now reporters were arrested for actually becoming violent.
The fact that the headline is so vague and weaselly makes me think that someone is trying to put a spin on it. You might as well say that they "face jail time after brushing their teeth" and they "face jail time after getting out of bed in the morning" and it would literally be true.
USSA (Score:2)
With the best legal system money can buy.
Update: Judge threw out charge (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.latimes.com/busines... [latimes.com]
Breaking news: Judge dismisses riot charges. (Score:5, Informative)
According to the local paper [bismarcktribune.com].
Judge Rejects "Riot" Charges Against Amy Goodman (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why she filed and released the evidence there is little question she was a participant in illegal activity. She crossed the line you do not get to be a participant in a crime just because your a journalist.
Journalists who particpated in illegal activity (Score:2)
"you do not get to be a participant in a crime just because your a journalist."
Unless you are an embedded journalist with the troops in the second Iraq war.
This will be down-modded as a troll, but that war was based on lies and the schedule on the "microsoft-project" plan for the war, overriding the requests of the international weapons inspectors to wait to let them finish their investigation with which Iraq was cooperating. That war was inflicted on people of the same general skin tone as 9/11 terrorists
Re: (Score:2)
International law matters when you can enforce it. Thus there is no international law for superpowers. It's settled by war in which the nation that wins is right regardless of facts or whats written down on paper somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
If a journalist committed a crime whilst riding with the Iraqi troops they should be charged accordingly. They are not immune. Might be a little difficult to find a body to prosecute them though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently didn't watch the same video I did. It's one thing to bear witness it's another to actively encourage them like a docudrama producer. The line is well established and she crossed it.
When will the law be on the side of (Score:2)
hope and change?
That's a legitimate question.
Why is the law and the force of law enforcement always on the side of the entrenched, obsolete and now destructive interests?
When will law and law enforcement actually be supporting the implementation of the absolutely clearly necessary changes to our energy system?
When will the law actually be clearing away obstruction to change, instead of advocates of necessary change?
Imagine all the people...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is a reporter? Someone who reports on some newsworthy event? If so anyone can be a reporter. Or do you have to work for an official "news" outlet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)