Slashdot Mirror


Journalists Face Jail Time After Reporting on North Dakota Pipeline Protest (techcrunch.com)

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.

357 comments

  1. Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. Dissent. Allowed.

    1. Re:Get it MFers? by Hylandr · · 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?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:Get it MFers? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or a Trump supporter making direct threats to take out Clinton?

      https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasne...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:Get it MFers? by Vermonter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because race-baiters aren't a threat to the establishment and serve to keep the public distracted from real issues.

    5. Re:Get it MFers? by Aaden42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have no first person knowledge, but having followed Amy Goodman's career for the last 15 years or so, it's inconceivable that she would be active in any attack or sabotage in anything short of a self defense situation if she were sucked into the fray. She's one of a dying breed of people who deserve to hold the title "journalist."

    6. Re:Get it MFers? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      You forgot the Sarc dude. She's a skilled propagandist, I'll grant you that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Get it MFers? by jellomizer · · 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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Get it MFers? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 0

      I believe that would be because billions of dollars aren't at stake.

      This is a region of the US where politicians are made from the same poorly educated, short-sighted few that live in these desolate parts. A place where dollars are rarely spoken of in terms of millions and billions will motivate anyone to execute their grandma and sell their daughters as concubines to Lucifer. Government oversight is unheard of and born of the same libertarian tradition that insists citizens be free of oversight and intrusion.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    9. Re: Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascism: the merger of corporate and state interests.

    10. Re:Get it MFers? by negRo_slim · · Score: 0

      Some political rhetoric AND a link to Buzzfeed. Truly a comment of substance, kudos to you sir.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    11. Re:Get it MFers? by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny thing: it was Repub HQ that was fire bombed.

    12. Re:Get it MFers? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Get it MFers? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      So sorry that a recorded threat against a presidential candidate is beneath you. I just can't believe I used the first link I saw, and that it offended you so deeply.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    14. Re: Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

      Because the only color that matters is green fool

    15. Re:Get it MFers? by sjames · · Score: 2

      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.

    16. Re: Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want my 2018 Hillary Half Dollar so I hope whomever can wait until after the Inaguration.

    17. Re:Get it MFers? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      You mean...not in Massachusetts, then?

    18. Re:Get it MFers? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Informative

      Greens, whipping up yet another guerrilla attack on infrastructure under the guise of native rights? If it really is a tribe protesting for safety in their area, they would also have been protesting against rattletrap oil trains running past their land.

    19. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theft might be the people who attempted to shut down the pipeline, in essence "theft of service". It might be wild reasoning, but I'm just taking a guess at what it was for.

    20. Re:Get it MFers? by jodido · · Score: 0

      You obviously have not been paying attention to Sharpton for the last 15 years or so. Time to find another imaginary enemy.

    21. Re:Get it MFers? by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      "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 saw that they could never make that charge stick, so now they want to charge me with rioting," said Goodman. "I wasn’t trespassing, I wasn’t engaging in a riot, I was doing my job as a journalist by covering a violent attack on Native American protesters."

    22. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they allege she stopped the flow of oil through a pipeline, a public utility that services companies. So theft of service is apt.

      in the future, you might want to look up the definitions of crimes before you complain about them.

    23. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      She choked children by forcing them to sniff kittens. 45 years in prison is just a warning.

    24. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean Bismark could have just said yeah it's fine where you are going to originally put the pipeline right outside of town, but nope those communities said no we don't want the risk. So instead they shove it down on Indian land expecting no one to make a fuss. So maybe the town of Bismark should have taken one for team infrastructure.

    25. Re: Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or firebombing a good office

    26. Re:Get it MFers? by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      actually, 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.

    27. Re:Get it MFers? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      I don't know what actually happened, but you should know (and this isn't common knowledge) that tribal law and authority supercedes US civil law on tribal land for members of the tribe or anyone involved in a dispute with them or about use of the land.

    28. Re: Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E.g. Hillary

    29. Re:Get it MFers? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I am very proud of my fellow slash-dotters for modding this +5.

      There *is* hope for the world still.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    30. Re:Get it MFers? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Enlighten me then o-salty one.

      I have seen enough of him the last 5 to wonder with incredulity why he's not in jail for openly asking for dead cops.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    31. Re:Get it MFers? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you do not understand the US government and treaty obligations. That's what the US supreme court and it's corrupt judges are for. Want to compare apple and oranges go to the US supreme court and they will tell you an apple is an orange as long as an undead corporate zombie person, tells them that an apple is an orange, just like a piece of paper (corporate charter) is a human being. Don't forget that want to charge Doctor Jill Stein for vandalism, spray painting the front of a bull dozer blade, I mean the tens of thousands of dollars that now must be spent cleaning that paint off the front of a dozer blade, I mean that blade must be spotless before it can be used to push around tons of dirt and rock, because 'er' 'um', just because screw democracy, more money, more power, more money, more power. This kind of bullshit pure panic, they know the jig is up and they are terrified of actually getting their just desserts. Once the prosecutions start, they will go right to the highest offices across the globe, oh so many crimes against humanity.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:Get it MFers? by nullchar · · Score: 1

      Have you ever listened to the daily _independent_ news radio program Democracy Now? Stream it a few times if you don't live near a local station that broadcasts it. I listen on a local (community-supported, not wide-scale public) radio station. The team does a great job with multiple interviews (not just a few talking heads) from out in the field - where stuff is happening, but also with a range of award-winning journalists from all over the planet.

      It's easy to criticize the reporting of details, but this is an intense story that has not received enough attention on main stream media.

      Just snipits from a timeline:

      http://www.democracynow.org/20...
      http://www.democracynow.org/20...
      http://www.democracynow.org/20...
      http://www.democracynow.org/20...

      These events have been reported by a range of medial outlets, but in limited air time:

      https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22d...

      Too much mainstream coverage is given to the 2016 presidential election than many other current events of consequence.

    33. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you followed her career, as you claim, you would know that she is an SJW activist posing as journalist.
      She should be free to be an activist, even for irrational causes. She should face charges if she instead of sticking to non violence, committed crimes like damaging (or help damage) property as established in open court.
      Get Real!

    34. Re:Get it MFers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey! Stop saying something without sugarcoating it, do you want to get arrested?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:Get it MFers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In this case I have a hard time thinking that any allegations would be true. Goodman is one of the few real journalists left that the US has that get some reasonable coverage. I wish we had someone like her on the other end of the political spectrum, too, because she's a bit too far left leaning for my personal tastes, but I have to give her that, she does a good job and she's playing by the rules.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re: Get it MFers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Green can't matter, for the pipeline is, if anything, a "green" matter, and reporting about it seems to be a big, big nono.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    37. Re:Get it MFers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      He didn't write a rap about it, maybe?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    38. Re:Get it MFers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, if nothing else, the videos should make it easier to prosecute those breaking the law...

      If she did participate in the riots, no questions, but I somehow doubt it. She's a reporter, and I've seen her and her crew at some hotspots in the past. She's not joining in, she's only pointing her cams on everything. That's pretty much what a reporter does. If a reporter shows pictures of people being killed in a war, does he become a murderer?

      Also, I don't think this could be considered making a promo video when she's showing how protesters swarm and pummel the workers. If anything, it will produce antipathy with them from the viewers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re: Get it MFers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, she's the presidential candidate with her own corporation in the back...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    40. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because those things you just said are BS.

    41. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the charges should be tossed, but yeah, it was not a peaceful protest.

      Worse, Goodman pretty obviously edited her videos to remove large sections. I'd guess those are the sections that make the protesters look more violent. The editing is so choppy it arguably rises to the level of doctoring.

    42. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, theft of property or service.

      Your right it doesn't make sense especially since this has to do with the pipeline going across Native American land. After all haven't Native people had ENOUGH LAND STOLEN.

      Talk about "Theft of Property" the US has done this to us for over 500 years.

    43. Re:Get it MFers? by GinaDEEE · · Score: 1

      http://www.motherjones.com/env... The charges were dismissed. Don't know if the judge was fair or the gigantic crowd of people outside the courtroom convinced him

    44. Re: Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got that wrong. Her puppet strings are controlled by corporations, whereas her Opponent doesn't worry about money.

    45. Re:Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is rather restricted in anything that would look like a campaign contribution at the moment.

    46. Re:Get it MFers? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      He surely could have gotten his foundation to pay for it. Since they've paid for everything from the boyscouts to lawyers fees.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    47. Re:Get it MFers? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      welcome to the new free world
      you are free
      to do as we tell you
      you're not safe on the other side of the planet or we drop a swat team on your house if they wont extradite
      if that doesnt work, a drone will do the trick
      tres sympa guys, you're doing a great job antagonizing the planet

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I feel like I'm not getting the full picture here

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need the full picture You must only feel rage.

    2. Re:Hmm... by jedidiah · · 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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from the charges, what does the government complaint actually say? It is hardly fair to only give one point of view.

    4. Re:Hmm... by BlueStrat · · 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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:Hmm... by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, here is what the AG told the local paper:

      “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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Hmm... by Archtech · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    7. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since the bitch will get to choose the Supremes and remove last vestiges of the pretense of a rule of law, nope.

      The proper term would be "sonufabitch" or "bastard" for his Orangeness. However, the Supremes have already picked been picked, and I doubt Donald Trump would invent a time machine just to change history to eliminate that musical group. William Proxmire, on the other hand, would surely have done it if he were able. Well, maybe not the Supremes, but perhaps Jefferson Starship.

    8. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that ND is a deeply GOP state, I don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. And I'm sure you don't either.

    9. Re:Hmm... by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. That's exactly what China says when they shut up reporters too.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:Hmm... by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Can't speak for the first one, but the second one, Deia Schlosberg, was caught trespassing with a group of individuals that were intending to "take matters into their own hands" but shutting off a valve on an in-service pipeline. (No matter your stance on the issue, this is an idiotic idea.) Here is one link. (Hard to figure out which ones are legitimate news sites, this may or may not be. When a website has a URL like "trust.org" I tend to do the opposite, but this one appears to be Reuters related.)

    11. Re:Hmm... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Laws against reporting things tend to run afoul of the First Amendment.

    12. Re:Hmm... by imidan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It appears that the protesters were attempting to shut down pipeline pumping stations

      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.

    13. Re:Hmm... by amiga3D · · Score: 4, 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.

    14. Re:Hmm... by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      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 claimed you were making a documentary.

    15. Re:Hmm... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Really, you mean filming a protest...pull the other one Potsy.

    16. Re:Hmm... by bmo · · 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.
      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 /buy it/ instead of going the cheap route and getting easements.

      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

    17. Re:Hmm... by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      Honest question. Is a bonafide journalist still trespassing if they are on someone else's property without permission. I didn't think a press pass gave them special privilege to go where they are not welcome.

      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?

    18. Re:Hmm... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    19. Re:Hmm... by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      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...

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    20. Re:Hmm... by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      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 claimed you were making a documentary.

      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.

    21. Re:Hmm... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    22. Re:Hmm... by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      So I'm allowed to accompany any person committing a crime, so long as I'm filming it? Doesn't seem to hold water. The best I can tell, she was trespassing on Enbridge property, that makes her guilty of trespassing. And shutting down an active pipeline isn't a protest, aside from being a monumentally stupid idea, it is a crime.

    23. Re:Hmm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 0

      That's right. Unlawful detention, torture of prisoners, surveillance without warrants. I sure wish we had Republican lawmakers in office, they would never let that kind of abuse of power happen.

      Oh wait, it started under the fucking Republicans and the idiot Democrats ran with it. Your party put the first nail in the coffin for rule of law, not mine. And there's no fucking way Donald "I think Vladimir Putin the dictator is cool" Trump would fix it.

    24. Re:Hmm... by taustin · · Score: 1, 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.)

    25. Re:Hmm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a great quote. But your signature is dishonest. Unlawful surveillance and torture of prisoners started under the Republicans.

      Or is the surveillance/police state fine, as long as it's not run by Democrats?

    26. Re:Hmm... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    27. Re:Hmm... by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      "hopefully it will get bitch slapped by the Supremes"

      Stop In the Name of Law

    28. Re:Hmm... by lgw · · 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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:Hmm... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    30. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know all the details yet of this case but if you knew the robbery was going to occur and decided to film it rather than report it, then conspiracy is an appropriate charge.

    31. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the rights of the landowner who gave the company permission to build on his property?

      What about the rights of the security detail who were just defending themselves from an angry mob?

      If she was just a reporter covering the facts, why was she on the property at all? She could have done just as much from the road. But she had to go and participate with the protesters, making her culpable.

      I know you like getting angry about this, but think about this from the perspective from someone who isn't emotionally invested in the outcome.

    32. Re:Hmm... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      i didnt know FDR was a republican

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    33. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did that video show you everything that happened, or just what they wanted you to see?

    34. Re:Hmm... by BlueStrat · · 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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    35. Re:Hmm... by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Your party put the first nail in the coffin for rule of law, not mine.

      FDR was a libertarian? Look up Echelon you halfwit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I once believed in the Republican party but then Bush took over from Reagan and it's been all downhill from there.
      You think the Republican Party was good until after Reagan?
      Are you sure you didn't mean to say it went downhill with Reagan?

    37. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stomping on the Constitution seems to be a bi-partisan thing ever since Washington.

      FTFY.

      By all means, rage against the illegitimacy, but don't mistake this for something new. It could not be more business as usual.

    38. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, bullshit.

      She wasn't trespassing. They threw out that charge last week because they knew it wouldn't stick.

      This is an asshole state legislature enabling an asshole state cop to arrest anyone who dares not like what the gov't is doing.

    39. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Yeah, journalists should not be immune to trespassing charges. Trespassing won't get you 45 years though. Unless you trespass in some dictatorship like Russia, China, Zimbabwe, Syria or perhaps the USA?

      Also, journalists don't have to report perfectly from "both sides" in a conflict. They can be slanted - that may be bad journalism but certainly not illegal. Just look at all the slanted reporting when an election is coming up.

    40. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'm allowed to accompany any person committing a crime, so long as I'm filming it?

      I'm not sure you can do that no, but it'd be a good move to allow it. Filming someone committing a crime is just about perfect evidence. If all you do is film, and not assist the criminal (carrying their stuff etc.) then why not?

    41. Re: Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That part has always infuriated me. The Democrats and their safe space raised supporters have been acting like liberty suppressing thugs lately. However, the Republicans are lying when they say that the modern mass surveillance and abuses didn't start under Bush and that they didn't cheer it on at the time. The White House went after reporters who asked uncomfortable questions too, and never mind how they and their supporters treated any who dared question anything they ever did. Now they play innocent victims without one bit of irony.

      The Democrats are guilty of not ending abuses and also of continuing them. They had a chance at the high ground and blew it. Now, if they had ended all this crap and put people in jail who deserve it, the very same people who scream about their behavior would be complaining they didn't do enough.

      There are differences between Democrats and Republicans. Serious differences. On this topic though, they both suck and have long lists of people who need to be in jail.

    42. Re:Hmm... by hey! · · Score: 4, 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 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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    43. Re:Hmm... by sjames · · Score: 4, 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.

    44. Re:Hmm... by SmokeyRobot · · Score: 1
      The part that jumped out at me is this portion.

      "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."

      We saw the fanning of flames after 9/11 and it consumed us to the point of severely damaging the nation. We as a people compromised our principles and public opinion was manipulated until the result was complete after which public opinion was allowed to flow freely again. Prior to the creation of the internet, public opinion has been controlled and manufactured. It still is but the effect has been lessened due to the widespread access of information. It is the free flow of information that allows people to recognize what is happening and attempt to fight it.

    45. Re:Hmm... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      lgw being a dumbass yet again. Native tribes own that land. The US government doesn't get half a hershey squirt of a say about what goes on there unless the tribe agrees to it. They don't have the jurisdiction to press any fucking criminal charges.

      If you're a native american (full, half, quarter, eighth, etc. depending on the tribe) you can commit all manner of crimes and then run off to the reservation and be nearly untouchable. It's a stronger protection than any foreign diplomat enjoys.

    46. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since time immemorial...

      "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiates, approx 2500 years ago

      Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr 1894

    47. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, the people you are fliming will kill you when they realize you set them up for charges and they won't have a defense of he said / she said?

    48. Re:Hmm... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      i didnt know FDR was a republican

      Didn't you get the memo?

      They're Republicans or nebulous non-Party entities when they do stuff we disagree with and Democrats when they do stuff we agree with.

      That extreme partisanship he exhibits is exactly the type of thing Washington was warning about in the portion of his farewell address I quoted earlier in a post up-thread.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    49. Re:Hmm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      So Bush repudiated FDR's example and took the high road? So Trump would do that if elected?

    50. Re:Hmm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Fair point. Let me rephrase. President Bush presided (pun irrelevant) over the largest increase in executive authority in decades. Yes, FDR was as bad or worse. Yes, Obama took the torch from President Bush and ran with it.

      But the parent post implicitly asserts that picking conservative Supreme Court justices would fix the problem or at least slow it down - in fact the party of the Supreme Court Justices is irrelevant. Both parties are attacking rule of law.

    51. Re:Hmm... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Native tribes own that land

      You understand the difference between someone owning the land, and the land being on a reservation, right? Native Americans can buy land in the US proper?

      Per other /. commenters, the protest location doesn't seem to be on any reservation. I'm pointing out that simply owning the land doesn't automatically let you get away with this sort of thing, without getting into who actually owns the land, what leases exist, etc.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    52. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an easement is not the same as renting. they're paying for use of the land, but the fact that it's an easement and not a rental means they have no expectation of exclusive rights to the physical space. the owner can enter and invite whomever and it's not trespassing.

      she's not only gonna walk, she should take that's AGs bar license on the way to her payday for violation of first amendment rights.

    53. Re:Hmm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Your statement makes the implicit assertion that conservative (the American definition of conservative, to be clear) Supreme Court Justices would slow halt the erosion of the rule of law in the US. So even if you're not American, you picked sides.

    54. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote Kodos!

    55. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      Very true, a reporter can trespass (e.g. imagine one walking in to your bedroom in the name of "public good").

      However, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to demonstrate this. Presumption of innocence, and all that. In fact, given that this is a POLITICAL protest, the burden of proof should be exceptionally high.

      I can't blame the AG and the Police without further information. This is the process for how criminal procedures happen, after all, and the reporter could actually have been doing something wrong. The first step in the process of a criminal proceeding is to arrest the person. However, they should absolutely be excoriated by the media (as is happening) to both dissuade authorities from abusing that authority, and to make sure the true story gets out so if the reporter is innocent that it doesn't get swept under the rug for political expediency.

      I think this is one of those "it's a weird edge case, and there is no good way to handle it" situations. The only thing I'd change would be to have some kind of sanction against a spurious accusation... but I have no idea how that would work in practice.

    56. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you expect the police to know who you are and what you're doing there? Or should they just arrest everyone and figure it out later?

    57. Re:Hmm... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    58. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You become a journalist, by journaling things.

    59. Re:Hmm... by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      Dismissed or not ... the simple leveling of charges against a journalist in the performance of their job is an egregious misuse of power.

    60. Re:Hmm... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      that has nothing to do with your point

      you said this all started with republicans.... you are wrong...end of story

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    61. Re:Hmm... by hey! · · Score: 1

      You are pulling arguments out of your bottom sphincter here. The AG didn't drop the criminal trespass charges out of the goodness of his heart. For whatever reason he couldn't make the misdemeanor trespass charges stick.

      As for the security people defending themselves -- it's not at all clear that's what they were doing. What the final edited footage shows is a gross over-reaction: setting dogs on unarmed protesters, after which they arm themselves with wooden pulled up from fencing. Of course the raw footage could well have been edited to produce that impression.

      If she was just a reporter covering the facts, why was she on the property at all?

      The video footage shows her asking the security personnel their side of the story, which they decline to offer. Still, it's impossible to do that from a hundred yards away, or to show the fact that the guy denying he was pepper spraying anyone was holding a can of the stuff.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    62. Re:Hmm... by imidan · · Score: 1

      I agree. Sadly, this is the atmosphere in many Western states. When citizen investigators infiltrated an animal processing plant in Idaho and came out with horrific footage of animal abuse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_YcWOuVqk), the state's response was to pass a law not against animal abuse, but against exposing animal abuse. The law was drafted by the Idaho Dairymen's Association.

      Happily, the law was later determined to be unconstitutional, but the point is, in the Western US, we're much more likely to attempt to abridge first amendment rights than to try to deal with the ugly problems that are revealed by reporting, whether it's a dairy worker sexually molesting a cow, or private security contractors settings dogs on protesters.

    63. Re:Hmm... by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      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, and we can be sure she'll follow Obama's lead on 4th.

      And this concerns me as without a world power at least nominally protecting these freedoms, you can bet freedom of speech and so on will become niche then disappear.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    64. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is not sad, it is by design.

      As soon as you accept the oft repeated line, "the Constitution is a living document," you accept your rights will be "abridged" and removed. What did you think that phrase was designed to do?

      The 4th amendment has been roughly ass-fucked by recent precedents. Not only that, but gag orders are issued to prevent disclosure of violations of the 4th! You think those are not related? Keep in mind, both of the presidential candidates have talked about suing people for their (truthful but unflattering) press coverage. The 1st is next. And every time someone goes batshit crazy with a firearm, you can bet our president and other political talking heads will be turning up the frog/pot temp another notch on the 2nd, just like the last time.

      You fucktards wanted this, now you have it and are complaining?

      Please, let me off this planted populated by suicidally ignorant fools.

    65. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An easement allows you to use property. It doesn't give you the ability to prevent others who have permission from the land owner from using the land. An easement is not a lease. Unlike a lease, it does not grant *exclusive* use. If I give you an easement on my property to access a lake, that doesn't prohibit me from inviting other people onto that easement.

    66. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Is a public report not also a report to the authorities?
      Also, the authorities prefer that people don't play amateur police officer; that never ends well.

    67. Re:Hmm... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Let's say a a reporter learns ahead of time that a guy is going to beat the crap out of his ex-wife. Are you saying it's okay for the reporter to go along and video the woman being beaten?

      Because that's exactly what happened here. Goodman knew ahead of time when and where the "protesters" were going to hit. So she went along and videoed it.

    68. Re:Hmm... by Zxern · · Score: 1

      The protests had been going on for quite a long time before she showed up to report on it.

    69. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, okay. I don't know what that rant had to do with anything, but I guess it all comes down to Hillary taking our guns?

    70. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This specific protest did not happen on native american land. It happened a few miles outside the reservation.

      I'm pointing this out because your argument hinges on it happening on a reservation. It did not. A private landowner owns the plot of land where the construction was occurring.

      so whos the dumbass now?

    71. Re: Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republican Party has been 2 since the days Abraham Lincoln.

    72. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but it also doesn't allow you to put people/objects on the property specifically to prevent those "other people" from using the prescribed easement for the intended purpose. For better or worse the pipeline workers appear to have a legal right to be there for the purposed of installing a pipeline, the "protestors" actions in this case would be a little bit like the landowner being annoyed at the people using the easement, so he/she decides to invite all of their friends to park their cars i the middle of the easement to block them from using it.

    73. Re: Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remind me who called your constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" and which party he belonged to.

      =

      Most likely? Nobody in particular. You've been taken in by a myth. Of course, it is inaccurate as the original was written on parchment. Still, it is important to remember that it is neither sacred, nor necessarily profound. It does have its flaws. Hard though it may be for some to admit.

      Justice Ginsburg did suggest looking to other models for writing a constitution, but that's not offensive, on language alone, there is considerable room for improvement, and some of the awkward choices are not appropriate in other contexts. Still, it was treated in a most unfortunate manner, as of t was disrespectful, when to the contrary, an examination of our principles is the proper choice for those who would make claims to liberty. Thus we must remember not to fall into the trap that can be made from sanctimony.

    74. Re:Hmm... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Let's say a a reporter learns ahead of time that a guy is going to beat the crap out of his ex-wife. Are you saying it's okay for the reporter to go along and video the woman being beaten?

      Because that's exactly what happened here. Goodman knew ahead of time when and where the "protesters" were going to hit. So she went along and videoed it.

      They are not equivalent.

      One is a straightforward case of premeditated domestic assault and battery where there is no gray area. The entire thing from beginning to end is illegal.

      The other is a protest (a Constitutionally-protected activity) where there was a *possibility* of illegal conduct occurring. Who knows? Maybe if circumstances had been slightly different when the protesters arrived, nothing illegal may have occurred.

      Wouldn't that "possibility" be a newsworthy item that an investigative journalist might want to show up to report on?

      Gotta logic harder, bro!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    75. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. I cannot add anything to that.
      Long live liberty.

    76. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the AG's argument amounts to this: the person in question was sympathetic to the protesters, therefore she was one of them.

      Thing is, sympathy is not intent, so it's a bogus claim.

      Otherwise we'd start burning books like The Tunnel, and we all know only nazis burn books, and only when they contain the map to hidden religious artifacts.

    77. Re:Hmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Thanks. At least one person gets it.

      The whole "oh, the other party is guilty" bullshit is like blaming one or the other actor if the play is rubbish.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    78. Re:Hmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, since I've seen people being charged with "impetuous loitering", I'm no longer wondering...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    79. Re:Hmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This is always the question, and this is why I wish more people would start having cameras with them all the time so we could get more footage from all angles and all points of view.

      Wait a minute. Pretty much everyone DOES have a camera with him all the time...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    80. Re:Hmm... by swalve · · Score: 1

      Parties change over time. The republicans have welcomed in the more seemly factions that would have been democrats 70 years ago.

    81. Re:Hmm... by swalve · · Score: 1

      Leveling charges with the intent to stifle reporting is bad. But reporters don't get special dispensation from breaking the law. If law enforcement sees a violation of the law, they should write the ticket or make the arrest. Then the process of justice will sort it all out.

    82. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. It's very common for police to arrest protesters on the charge of resisting arrest. There is never any intent to make charges 'stick' in cush arrests, just to end protests and inconvenience protesters.

    83. Re:Hmm... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's been a long steady decline. FDR put us on this track. He's the one who arranged the original England spies on American and Australian citizens, Australia spies on English and American citizens and America spies on English and Australian citizens plan (Echelon). Abracadabra, no problems with any pesky privacy rights for any of these nation's cops.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    84. Re:Hmm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Your signature places the blame on US liberals, instead of spreading it across both parties.

    85. Re:Hmm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      The recent over reach of executive power in the US experienced a surge after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The abuses under FDR, Hoover, McCarthyism, etc.... were - as far as I'm aware - toned down or reduced over the decades since until that time. Otherwise you might as well blame Lincoln for the expansion of power during the Civil War.

      I was specifically responding to BlueStrat's signature, which seems to lay government surveillance and the police state solely at the feet of the American liberals. Considering the Republican President's actions and Republican support of the Patriot Act, there's plenty of blame for both sides.

    86. Re:Hmm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      As oppose to the guy who thinks Vladimir Putin is a good leader? The Russian dictator that nationalized an oil company, ordered an invasion, and rigged the 2012 elections?

      What makes you think he's going to be any more interested in restraining executive power than she is?

    87. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The first amendment gives you no right to trespass

      However, in many cases the 9th Amendment does give you the right to do things that some will attempt to label as trespassing. As such, the absence of specific mention in the first amendment is irrelevant and immaterial.

      To review, the Bill of Rights was written to be open-ended, in order to deal with the objection posed by the Anti-Federalists that any Bill of Rights would invariably omit critical rights. It provides for assertion of any rights the people desire, as being rights "retained by" them under the 9th Amendment (and redundantly "reserved to" them under the 10th - this is such an important issue that it appears twice!). As we all know, Madison fully intended the Bill of Rights to apply to state and local government, not just the federal government, and only certain items were limited to the federal government.

      The right to travel is certainly one of the rights arising under the 9th Amendment (and recognized by federal courts as being one of the rights subject to "strict scrutiny"). Further, a right can be asserted under the 9th Amendment that the American people have at least the same rights as the citizens of any civilized state, which means the right to "roam" - a right having centuries of protection in many places - is a protected right.

      We can come to the same conclusion by another means, namely by considering the right to ethical practice of law (another fundamental 9th Amendment right). Since US law generally inherits from English Common Law, then we have to consider historical ethical conflicts of interest affecting English Common Law. This applies in particular to property law - one of the areas of law with the strongest connection to English Common Law - and the fact that the legal profession in old England was in a position of conflict of interest with respect to supporting the big land-owners is well established. Hence, we can presume that the form of property law is likely to reflect the interests of large land owners at the expense of society. It follows that typical formulations of property law will likely come into conflict with the right to ethical practice of law with respect to issues such as trespassing, a matter of particular concern to large land owners (it was the large land owners that primarily fought the Civil Rights movement in England that established the right to roam). Indeed, property law will certainly come into conflict with fundamental rights unless this issue has been carefully worked through - and I know of no jurisdiction where that is the case. When the Bill of Rights comes into conflict with lessor law such as property law, that lessor law must yield.

      It follows that law on trespassing in many jurisdictions is likely to be illegal law, and enforcement of that law in many cases will involve violations of the oaths sworn by all lawyers and law enforcement personnel. People in those professions that do not understand the implications of this should carefully study historical events at a place called Nuremberg.

      Clearly there are some reasonable limits that can be placed on traveling over private property. Certainly a 9th Amendment right to privacy exists, and thus it is reasonable to have strong property law provisions that protect the land immediately around a home. It's even reasonable to have some protection for business properties, even if the exact details of that protection will likely be considerably weaker then those business owners would like (in order to accommodate a reasonable right to travel, right to roam, and other rights that are applicable). But neither of those exceptions would allow any legitimate formulation of property law to apply to the actions of this reporter. Nor does it appear that those actions be considered a violation of any other law, whether "disturbing the peace" or "inciting to riot" or anything else.

      The district attorney in this case violated her oath to uphold the Bill of Rights, and did so in a situation

    88. Re:Hmm... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Your signature places the blame on US liberals, instead of spreading it across both parties.

      No, you simply fail to differentiate between ideologies and political parties like so many tend to do, whether from ideological/political bias or just plain intellectual laziness and apathy. There are Liberal/Progressive Republicans and there are also Constitutional-Conservative Democrats (although admittedly there are very few of the latter left).

      You know, if you were going to critique chess strategies one would hope you would take the time & trouble to at least learn the basics of the game beforehand.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    89. Re:Hmm... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The "living Constitution" idea has nothing to do with this. States pass unconstitutional laws. It's fairly frequent. The courts strike them down. The system is working to a certain extent (it would be nice if there were consequences for trying to enforce clearly unconstitutional laws), and there's no meddling with the Constitution going on.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    90. Re:Hmm... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Where did Clinton promise scrapping the first two Amendments? I think I missed the memo. And here I thought the rest of the conspiracy respected me!

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    91. Re:Hmm... by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      Not sure what law you think she broke?

  3. She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Other than piss of people with a shit ton of money and expose their illegal activities.

    1. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats the land of the free for you.

      The worlds 5th most restricted country and the worlds 2nd most self deluded citizens.

    2. Re:She did nothing wrong by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats the land of the free for you.

      America has never been 'the land of the free' first it was slavery, then mass incarceration (this land of the free seems to have the highest % of non-free people in its for-profit prison system)

    4. Re:She did nothing wrong by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      While it may not be illegal, to be a journalist, you must report the facts accurately and report both sides of the story (yes, I know most MSM have completely thrown this out the window, but they have name recognition and at least a history of reporting the facts).

      If you are grossly negligent in this responsibility, you may be considered a mouth piece for the protesters instead of a journalist, and therefore not given the special protection afforded to journalists covering a story. She was probably trespassing, and since she was not acting as an impartial journalist, she may be charged as a co-conspirator in the act that occurred in her presence. Its likely that they also have evidence of collusion before the fact; i.e. she knew of the attack ahead of time and discussed it with the organizers.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    5. Re:She did nothing wrong by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:She did nothing wrong by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      While it may not be illegal, to be a journalist, you must report the facts accurately and report both sides of the story

      Surely, you jest.

      http://www.breitbart.com/

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:She did nothing wrong by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      What kind of bullshit is that. A journalist was filming the protest. You don't like it, take it up with the First Amendment.

    8. Re:She did nothing wrong by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:She did nothing wrong by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      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 special to the Press, nor is the right to freedom of expression. Trespassing might apply, and the Press are often given passes to be present on the understanding that they won't actively cause trouble (no rioting, no inciting riot); violation of this understanding creates the same liability as an individual who causes such harm.

      I don't see a legal difference between a journalist and an individual.

    10. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe what you described would be considered the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Not every issue is deserving of both sides having an equal say.

      Take the issue of clubbing baby seals with Honduran children for a random and fictional example I stole from a TV show. Should CNN or BBC (or anyone else) really try and find someone who is pro-clubbing baby seals with Honduran children so they can try and present the whole issue as both sides having equal merit?

    11. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the OP's defense, they did say "journalist". That rules out all the blog sites desperately trying to pose as news outlets like Breitbart.

    12. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the Land of the Free if you got dough, bro'

    13. Re:She did nothing wrong by skids · · Score: 1

      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

      She's covering the protests and the treatment thereof by authorities (and those who are using force against them perhaps without the authority to do so.) The protests are her story, not the entire issue.

      Yes, her coverage has been biased in that she's only interviewed the protesters, but at the same time, if you are covering a fire, you don't have any obligation to seek out people who thought the building in question was ugly and we're better off with it gone (unless there is a reason to suspect they were involved.) You just cover the actual fire -- when the firetrucks pulled up, how much of it is under control, and were there any people in the building.

    14. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely, you jest.

      http:www.foxnews.com

    15. Re:She did nothing wrong by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 1

      It matters 0% what you're "considered", when journalism is concerned. No journalist has a "responsibility" to be objective, because it's a moral and logical impossibility. What matters is the truth, and how accurately you are presenting it. Should journalists have been "morally objective" when reporting on the Iraq war, giving us Hussein's side of the story in equal measure?

      Serious question - if not, why not? The short answer would be that doing so would have rightfully been considered a massive betrayal of our country. If we're at war, you don't write sympathetic pieces for our enemies, "objectivity" be damned. You're quickly going to find the level of "objectivity" a journalist is supposed to have, in covering a conflict, is very, very, subjective. In other words, your appeal to objectivity is a bunch of bullshit. Journalists are objective when it won't betray our country, or otherwise cause such controversies. Conversely, when the state is involved, such as in this case, you're supposed to be "objective", lest you get labelled a "mouthpiece".

    16. Re:She did nothing wrong by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The government doesn't get to determine whether something is "documentation" or "marketing" here. It's speech and is protected.
      If we had it your way the government would just slap a label on anything it didn't like and declare it to not be protected speech. (HintL They're already doing this and people like you are letting them.)

    17. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, I live near this, she damaged peoples property, went onto private property and spray painted it, helped to agitate people and it is now to the point where the original tribe has said they no longer have any control over it and want to move the protest to native land (From the land they occupied which was private and they never had permission to be on).

    18. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She did do stuff illegal. I live near this and she sprayed graffiti on private property, trespassed after being told to leave and helped to agitate everyone. Like or hate the pipeline all you want, she PARTICIPATED in the protest, she didnt just report it.

    19. Re:She did nothing wrong by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes and that's why it's considered unethical journalism. It would also be grossly-damaging to arrest people for that shit; journalistic ethic is supposed to be a core tenant of journalism, and your peers are supposed to drive you out for that shit. It doesn't work when none of your peers have any ethics.

    20. Re:She did nothing wrong by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      False analogy. A fire is a material fact; protests are a material fact; the reason for the protests are a separate material fact. You don't cover the way the fire started until it's been determined.

    21. Re:She did nothing wrong by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Uh, I said "Parent suggests violation of ethic might change your legal status, but I don't believe that's true." I described in detail the actual legal status of speech. Shouting fire in a theater, inciting riot, slander, and libel will actually get you in legal trouble.

      You seem to be looking to make an attack by ignoring what's being said. Cool your ego, trollchild.

    22. Re:She did nothing wrong by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      You just highlighted at least part of the difference between an individual and a member of the press:

      "...the Press are often given passes to be present"

      However, you are wrong, the press does get special consideration: the constitution provides special protections specifically for the press and they are given a special responsibility to accurately report the facts. The question in this case hinges around whether she was acting as an impartial observer/member of the press, or as a promoter of the riot/violence/vandalism. Just writing a popular post of FB does not make you a journalist, especially if it only reports/promotes one side of the story/facts.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    23. Re:She did nothing wrong by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Bloggers, for the most part are not journalists, they are commentators. If you don' t know the difference, google is your friend.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    24. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of bullshit is that. A journalist was filming the protest. You don't like it, take it up with the First Amendment.

      You don't have 1st amendment rights when you step foot on private property. That's trespassing.

    25. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit with the "shouting fire in a theater" trope. It was part of a Supreme Court decision that was superseded by later decisions. There are limits to speech, but they are extremely narrowly defined. You have to actually cause damage with slander/libel before you can be held accountable, and then only in civil fashion. Of the four examples you cite, only inciting riot can truly be punished criminally.

    26. Re:She did nothing wrong by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of activists masquerading as journalists these days. While the public's opinion of "journalists" is at an all-time low. No surprise.

    27. Re:She did nothing wrong by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Goebbels and his family committed suicide, but he certainly would have been hung had he been captured, though, right? What's the difference between what he did and "unethical journalism?"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    28. Re:She did nothing wrong by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Big local gov and big brands have learned from the big agriculture decades with the chilling "ag gag" efforts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
      Add in critical infrastructure and key resource protection color of law.
      Strange how the US constitutions protections of the press and the tools of the press can be so lacking.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    29. Re:She did nothing wrong by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 2

      I have noticed that reading comprehension is not a strong point with this crowd. Slashdot is for people who like to think they are smart. For people who are really smart, you have to go to... er... um... I'm not sure where.

    30. Re:She did nothing wrong by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1

      Words the internet does not know how to spell #7: tenant != tenet

    31. Re:She did nothing wrong by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      So you are equating the pipeline workers to Saddam Hussein the mass murderer? Good to know.

      FYI keeping your objectivity inherently means reporting the facts as accurately as possible. Yes, everyone has a point of view, but the point of journalism is to be as accurate as possible with objective truth. There are also these things called opinions, and when both sides are held by generally good actors, you report both sides.

      I call bullshit on your example of the Iraq war, seeing all the negative on the US reporting that came out of the Iraq war (ever heard of Abu Ghraib?) That was clearly not pro US reporting but also clearly recognized as journalism.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    32. Re:She did nothing wrong by dywolf · · Score: 1

      you have no clue what you're talking about.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    33. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was pulled over because of the taillight, in what's known as pretext, because believe it or not cops don't get to just detain anyone they want, pulling over random cars until they find someone that matches a description. and remember, the phrase "he matched a description" is the 2nd most commonly told lie, right behind "stop resisting".

    34. Re:She did nothing wrong by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Did he match the description, though?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    35. Re:She did nothing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bullshit 'investigative journalism' " because people and groups like Amy Goodman and ProPublica don't take what the government and corporate monkeys give out as the official word and march that around like it's gospel? Amy Goodman gets the story from the side of the powerless. ProPublica has pointed out time and again where the government has let down the citizens. And as other people have pointed out, Goodman questions the word from the powerful elite of the U.S. Those two practices are indicative of good journalistic practice.

    36. Re:She did nothing wrong by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

      The Press has the same rights of free speech as others. The Constitution does not convey additional protections to the Press over the individual.

    37. Re:She did nothing wrong by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As far as Castille goes, did you find out why the officer was pulling him over (it was recorded)? It was because he vaguely resembled a suspect; basically, right race and nose. In other words, there was very little reason to think him guilty of the robbery, and he died because he had a slight resemblance to a description of a robber. That's about as excusable as a broken taillight.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:She did nothing wrong by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Were they even in the position to see what he looked like?
      They pulled him over because he was black, and they wanted to phish, hoping to get lucky. That's how he "matched the description" this mysterious armed robber.

    39. Re:She did nothing wrong by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 1

      First off, criticism of US is not tantamount with objective coverage of Hussein's Iraq, which is what you would have needed to demonstrate in order to "call bullshit" on my example.

      Besides, your response is a bit of a contradiction. You claim that "when both sides are held by generally good actors, you report both sides". You seem to be implying that when both sides are not considered "good" then you don't have to cover both sides objectively? I don't think I need to say much to demonstrate why using a word like "good" is entirely subjective, which completely undermines the point of being "objective" in the first place. You can't claim any kind of objectivity, after we have to administer a very subjective screening process, first. Again, that's called a contradiction. The framing of an issue, in and of itself, makes an ethical statement.

      How would you even determine the moral status of the actors at hand, in the first place? At best, it sounds like you're simply promoting consensus based ethical filters to predetermine the expected scope of acceptable reporting, as opposed to anything really resembling truth or objectivity. Observe the "objective" reporting around gay marriage, climate change, evolution, and Donald Trump, for further examples of this.

      In other words, you're going to have a hard time explaining why journalists have to be "objective" in a conflict like this, but can rightfully lose that objectivity when it comes to conflicts like the Iraq war, all without resorting to ethical arguments. The slightest drop of morality, here, will simply invalidate objectivity as a governing mandate. It has to be an all or nothing concept, like blind justice, or it's basically nonsense.

      Thus, it is objectivity that is bullshit, not journalism. If reporters were truly objective, they would have never had the instincts to expose Catholic priests, just to name an example off the top of my head.

    40. Re:She did nothing wrong by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Castille matched far more than race and nose. Same build, same scraggly chin beard, same long hair... The officer might have only said nose on the radio, but there was certainly more to go on there.

      Regardless, relevant information that CNN and others never bothered to publish, and instead said something false (broken taillight). My wife got a journalism degree. Getting a fact wrong in a story was an instant -50 points. Why do you think CNN reported the story incorrectly?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    41. Re:She did nothing wrong by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the pictures of the two? Yes, same race, but also same build, same scraggly chin beard, same length hair. I certainly would have pulled him over.

      The story fell out of the news though. I wonder if they ever determined whether or not he was actually the armed robber?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    42. Re:She did nothing wrong by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My source was the radio transmission. What's yours?

      I've seen journalists in the field, and they didn't act like getting a fact wrong cost them points.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    43. Re:She did nothing wrong by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I mean have you actually looked at photographs of Castille, and compared them to the photographs from the security camera?

      If you were a cop, and having seen the photograph of the robber at the morning briefing and been told "be on the lookout for a subject matching this photo," and then you saw Castille driving by, would you stop him?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    44. Re:She did nothing wrong by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's a bit of a difference between "enough resemblance to stop someone" and "enough resemblance to shoot someone". I haven't read claims that Castillo did anything wrong during the stop, only that he told the officer that he was legally armed. The video, unfortunately, doesn't cover that time period.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Good luck by MBGMorden · · 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.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:Good luck by Karl+Cocknozzle · · 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.

      --
      Who did what now?
    2. Re:Good luck by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, 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....

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They don't have the right to incite violence, attack people, trespass on private lands or assault law enforcement officers."

      What? They did not do such things, you are misinformed as to the actual events.

      What Violence? The Violence they were threatened with? For practicing Journalism? Which is all but dead in this country because of ass hats like you!

      Fuck You!

    4. Re:Good luck by Wrath0fb0b · · 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.

      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.

    5. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not on private property

    6. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The new charge comes after the prosecutor dropped criminal trespassing charges.

      A North Dakota state prosecutor has sought to charge award-winning journalist Amy Goodman with participating in a "riot" for filming an attack on Native American-led anti-pipeline protesters.

      She is being charged with a crime for filming OTHER PEOPLE ATTACKING HER AND OTHER PROTESTERS AT A PEACEFUL PROTEST.

      "I was doing my job as a journalist by covering a violent attack on Native American protesters.""

      What is America coming too.

    7. Re:Good luck by NatasRevol · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just FYI. The protestors are Native Americans. They're just enjoying a bit of payback.

      Pray they don't start handing out blankets.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:Good luck by ZenShadow · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    9. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They trespassed on private land. You are not allowed it's against the law! You are not very informed.

    10. Re:Good luck by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      You mean over blown by building a pipeline through native american land....yeah that's over blown *eye roll*

    11. Re:Good luck by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And they have the right to build a pipe line through Native American land....think again Potsy.

    12. Re:Good luck by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Care to provide any support for your claim that the pipeline is crossing Native American land? Best I can find is it crosses 1 mile north of the Standing Rock Reservation. (I mean, technically you ARE right, all of the land we are currently occupying was Native American land at one point. But I don't think that's what you are indicating)

    13. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's our land. Native Americans lost it when they got conquered.

    14. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "protesting" is not "trespassing, and destroying property"

      "right to protest" is not "right to ignore all other laws because you are 'protesting'"

      "freedom of the press" is not "right to ignore all other laws because you are a 'reporter'"

      they need to go back to teaching civics and government in schools today..

    15. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the Native Americans own the land?

      My understanding was that "Tribal land" was generally owned by the federal government, making it a non-state territory of the US not privately owned, and that the owners granted an easement for construction of the pipeline.

      This makes the native americans protecting more along the lines of a tenant complaining about their landlord letting Comcast run cable though the wall they share with an adjacent unit.

    16. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't go though native land. *rolls your eye back*

    17. Re:Good luck by lgw · · Score: 1

      We don't have the facts. Was she trespassing? Did she know ahead of time that the protesters intended to commit these crimes? Either of those is a crime. It's also a crime in some cases to make promotional material for criminal activity (especially if you label the activity "terrorism"), which is what the cops might be going for here, but that's very narrow and unlikely to stick.

      If the AG is trying different charges to see what sticks, chances are they've got nothing. But we don't have the facts.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nit-pick here, but sour grapes refers to the 'decision' that the thing you wanted wasn't really something you wanted when you were unable to get it.

      That is, if the state failed to build the pipeline, due to protests, sour grapes would be declaring that, "that easement was a poorly chosen route, we are better off without it."

    19. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Pray they don't start handing out blankets.

      They already are what with cut-rate alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. Now the white people can destroy themselves while the natives get the money!

    20. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is. Other tribes took money to let the pipeline be built through their territory. This one didn't want to cave.

      Think of this situation as one union member going on strike.

    21. Re:Good luck by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Who was doing the trespassing? (Hint: Not the people being charged.)
      Who owns the land? (Hint: Not the fuckos claiming jurisdiction and charging people.)

    22. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have a right to protest on their own property, they do not have a right to occupy someone elses land, spray paint millions of $$ work of equipment, and incite people to damage property. She was not a reporter, she was a participant. I live near this and it has become a joke.

    23. Re:Good luck by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      And they have the right to build a pipe line through Native American land....think again Potsy.
      Reply to This

      You mean Dakota Energy land or the river that's run by the Army Core of Engineers?

      Or the latest claim that since there are Native Americans buried under some of it, it's all subject to their whim and not that of the democratically elected government?

    24. Re:good luck by hesiod · · Score: 1

      If the Dakotas got swallowed up by the gates of hell tomorrow it'd be an improvement.

      You must work for their Board of Tourism.

    25. Re:Good luck by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      It is

      Well, that is one hell of a fact finding mission you went on there. This page and this image would disagree with your assessment. SD looks about the same, pipeline avoids established reservations. Didn't look at Iowa.

    26. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youknow if the tribes are unhappy...we can always go back to open hostilities. How do you think that will work out for them?

      When you lose the war...you dont get to make the rules.

      Pray i do not alter the deal an further.

      And yes it really is that simple. They can either accept it or find a new place to live. They are not above the good of the people.

    27. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Standing Rock Reservation is Native American Land still... not just at one point in the past.

    28. Re:Good luck by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      We have the fact that they dropped the trespassing charges, a good indication they knew they wouldn't stick.

      We have the fact that the judge rejected the riot charge for lack of evidence.

      I'm not sure what other facts you need to to determine that the prosecutor is just clutching at straws in order to harass a citizen.

    29. Re:Good luck by dywolf · · Score: 1

      lets also not forget the private security guards trying to intimidate the protestors with dogs, and then pushing the dogs into the protestors, forcing the animals into close proximity until the dogs began biting some of the protestors.

      too afraid to touch anyone themselves, they force an animal to do it, and even the animal was initially resisting it until its because stressed enough to lash out.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    30. Re:Good luck by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Who was doing the trespassing?

      The people who crossed the fence to get into the construction are. "No trespassing" signs were not posted, so the criminal trespassing charges were dropped, but... c'mon. They knew exactly what they were doing.

      Who owns the land? (Hint: Not the fuckos claiming jurisdiction and charging people.)

      Are you saying the protesters owned the land? They didn't. Their land was about a mile away.

  5. She's not charged for being a journalist by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by hey! · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by fahrbot-bot · · 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. 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.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by hey! · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      But that didn't happen so thank for proving you're an ass-hole.

    6. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      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 no longer within the confines of the law, regardless of whether you are a journalist. Journalists don't and shouldn't have diplomatic immunity, they should have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No his argument for the rioting charge was that she was in the group of people who broke a fence and trespassed, so she was part of the riot.

    9. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Arkham · · Score: 1

      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.

      By that argument, FoxNews is guilty of inciting riots, as is MSNBC. That's not a reasonable standard.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    10. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a "reporter" can document real rape and not be accessory to the rape? Wow.

    11. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      No his argument for the rioting charge was that she was in the group of people who broke a fence and trespassed, so she was part of the riot.

      If so, the courts should quickly dismiss it as frivolous.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    12. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by hey! · · Score: 1

      I wrote:

      As I mentioned elsewhere the AG has dropped trespassing charges

      You wrote:

      Sounds like she wasn't charged with being in a protest, which is a legal activity. She was charged with trespassing and rioting.

      Sounds like you hear what you want to be true.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trespass was dropped because their local definition requires posting signage, which was not posted at the work site at the time. So despite everyone knowing it's private land, trespass won't stick. That's why they moved the charge to being involved with the riot.

    14. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by hey! · · Score: 1

      In other words the AG is grasping at straws.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    15. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classic SLAPP suit, designed to intimidate the involved and chill the enthusiasm for getting involved of those observing.

      "A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech."

    16. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > She filmed herself trespassing on private property

      Let's suppose she did. Is that worth 45 years in prison?

      How great a crime is it to just trespass?

    17. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by hesiod · · Score: 1

      I think you may have strained your hyperbole with that logical leap. Might wanna get that checked.

    18. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by sexconker · · Score: 1

      There was no trespassing. The charge was even dropped because they knew they couldn't make such a charge stick.

      Try again!

    19. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by hey! · · Score: 1

      However if he has no basis to charge her for trespass, that argument falls down. Also, if she is covering the events as a journalist, she is by not "part of the group". So his argument is this: her reporting favorably on the group made her "part of the group". That's an asinine argument.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? the report did not participate in the rape, he only took picture. Just like in the article; the reporter did really trespass or motive the rioter with attention, she just took picture. It only picture, no harm done.

      If the reporter was accused of harassment for "triggering" peoples of colour or other minority in a trans-fat-brown-communist-whatever protest the story would be different. Everyone would be cheering at the prospect of jailing him.

    21. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Care to explain the difference? If you know a crime will be committed ahead of time but don't report it that's conspiracy (at least that's how the judge explained it to the jury I was on in a home invasion trial).

    22. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      If she's telling people what to do, then she's not covering the event, she's part of the event. Nonetheless, I think that would be a little hard to prove in court unless she allowed herself to be recorded actually urging people to commit unlawful acts... wait, she IS that stupid? Nevermind...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    23. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by j-beda · · Score: 1

      So a "reporter" can document real rape and not be accessory to the rape? Wow.

      I don't think there is any legal requirement for the reporter to act to prevent such a crime.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Watching US crime dramas, I get the impression that it is not even completely clear if the reporter would be required to turn over the documention of the crime in the way that a "regular citizen" would be required. I think in both cases a judge would need to issue a supeona but that for the reporter, it might be more difficult to get (assuming in both cases it was not handed over voluntarily.)

    24. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      And the judge has apparently tossed that charge, I guess they actually have a better idea of the evidence than a random slashdot coward.

    25. Re:She's not charged for being a journalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But rape. When it about rape, suddenly, logic is thrown out the window. Did i say rape? I hope i did not forgot to mention rape.

  6. Just like Saturday Night Live, she is a criminal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This time it was a hit piece on big oil.

    Next time it could be you.

    Save North Dakota from becoming another liberal hellhole and instead let it become a paradise like our good friends in Saudi Arabia.

  7. Re: Hope And Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Bernie would have been completely different.

    Even though his signage used the same colors and the same font. "A future you can believe in" is completely different from "Change you can believe in"

    See? Completely different!

  8. 45 for her job. by Dust038 · · Score: 2

    No where does it state she actively participated in the protest. I highly doubt they will be charged and I feel sorry for the judge that has to see this case. 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.

    1. Re:45 for her job. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:45 for her job. by Dust038 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes the good ole one-two. Only in Govt can you do your job too well and get removed because of it. That's why 40% of my job is staring at my wall waiting for someone to forget how to power on their laptop, wondering why the screen is black.

    3. Re:45 for her job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He got 30? Years?

      You know he hasn't been tried, right? Let alone convicted?

  9. Somebody involved please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    File a misconduct complaint against Erickson with the state bar association.

  10. surprising lack of coverage by BenBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well mostly because Trump doesn't have a big D in front of his name. I that were the case, nothing he has done, or would do would be a problem to the MSM. Every republican candidate becomes a massive asshole and target of the MSM weeks before the election, EVERY ELECTION CYCLE regardless as to who they are, or if they were a democrat at some point in their lives. The MSM won't cover stuff like this because 1) it could be used to beat up the current executive branch (D), and 2) it could harm future prospects to the executive branch (D).

    2. Re: surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Dakota is an R state, not a D state.

      The laws in questions are state laws, not federal.

      The laws violate the first amendment - a federal law.

      Robble robble State's Rights! -R

    3. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more important to the media that the status quo remain and Hillary gets in. So yes, 95% of the articles will remain anti-Trump, and the other 5% will wonder when the Khardashians will get back to posting stuff.

    4. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because thy don't want to get put in jail too.

    5. Re:surprising lack of coverage by geek · · Score: 2, 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 Democrat President. No way are they going to report anything negative to the political power base that they favor right before an election. Our media is now just Pravda for the US. It's pathetic.

    6. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The large-media coverage on this has been near nonexistent.

      The reports that have come out (based on police statements) suggest that some individuals have moved to illegal activity and violence. That certainly complicates a quick headline narrative.

      Journalists should be protected if they are reporting the story, and should normally be given the benefit of the doubt. If they become active participants in the story, however, they should not expect the cloak of the 1st amendment to protect them. The authorities are claiming this journalist crossed that line. I would hope the judge will require the authorities to show their work.

    7. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Simulant · · Score: 1

      I just cancelled my 99 cent subscription to WaPo over this. It's all Trump, all the time, everywhere you look. The fucking election was over a year ago.

    8. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      It is true. Yet another instance of late that something sounding like a tinfoil-hat theory is true.

      Bad people don't do bad things. Bad people do things that are good for the people they care about most.

    9. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the news is only about what benefits them and what team you are on.

    10. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN has literally *nothing*.

      Bullshit! I'm getting sick of people where (liberal and conservative) saying the press isn't covering something without even bothering to check.

    11. Re:surprising lack of coverage by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      James O'Keefe broke a story today with

      James O'Keefe has "broken" a lot of stories where he's turned out to be a big fat liar. Why would you expect the media to just jump on his latest story without at the very least spending some time investigating it first?

      And when there have been no hints from any other source that suggest the story is true?

      And when the allegation makes little or no sense, with little reason to see any reason why the Clinton campaign would actually do what they're accused of doing?

      And when the target of his hit piece is a woman whose enemies literally make stuff up about every few weeks?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It's more important to the media that the status quo remain and Hillary gets in. ... 95% anti-Trump

      It's not because Trump is an ignorant, bloviating, petty-minded, second-rate intellect with the morals of a testosterone-abusing tomcat and the petulant temperament of a frustrated adolescent?

      That couldn't enter into it at all?

      It MUST be the media that's the problem?

      Really?

    13. Re:surprising lack of coverage by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I do about obstruction of freedom of the press?

      Because freedom of the press does not give you carte blanche rights to ignore other laws. As someone has pointed out, she filmed herself on private land taking part in an otherwise illegal protest.

      The fact you finished your statement with "GTF of my lawn" is really kind of ironic.

    14. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanki you for helping us Correct The Record. $.50 has been deposited into yuor account.

    15. Re:surprising lack of coverage by BenBoy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't ordinarily reply (a/c and all), but your use of the exclamation point and your super-mad skillz at google moved me. Try this: site:cnn.com "amy goodman", and show me all that stuff you've found posted in, say, the last week (since this story took its current shape). So: Nonsense! back atcha

    16. Re: surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that stuff is true of Trump.

      You've been had.

    17. Re:surprising lack of coverage by BenBoy · · Score: 1

      The fact you finished your statement with "GTF of my lawn" is really kind of ironic.

      Ha! That was completely unintentional ... like much of my best work :-) The film did not show here taking part, btw. And it did show (metaphorical) Pinkertons setting dogs loose on the protesters. Ms. Goodman does have a point of view, so this is very different from, say, a Fair and Balanced(tm) journalist covering the same issues (were they to do so).

    18. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well mostly because Trump doesn't have a big D in front of his name.

      . According to Google, this is actually the first time "Trump" and "big D" have been used together in a sentence.

    19. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Their motto: "All the news that's bait to click!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    20. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly lying. More like impersonating criminals, then selectively editing video recorded without consent in a dishonest attempt to make people look much worse than they already are to prop up a hateful, ignorant party line. But lying? Not exactly.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    21. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Zxern · · Score: 1

      All of that was true a year ago when he first started running.

      The fact that they are only getting around to reporting that now is a media problem.

      Trumps run has been great for ratings meaning cash. And cash is all that matters.

    22. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      I know, right? Steve Bannon, married to a DNC operative! Roger Ailes, banging several different DNC operatives! These guys have ALL been corrupted by the radical left!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    23. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Mod. This. UP!!!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    24. Re: surprising lack of coverage by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Republicans: in favor of state's rights when the state is doing something that helps their agenda, and against state's rights when the federal government is doing something that fits their agenda.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    25. Re:surprising lack of coverage by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What video evidence? And exactly what did Wikileaks leak that is good evidence that Clinton committed a serious crime?

      The people at the top of the news organizations tend to be Republicans. Nor is the media one monolithic entity. Are you saying Fox will suppress stories because they hurt Clinton?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re: surprising lack of coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or when they have a upper-class twit legacy child to appoint as president (yes, there were remedies available in FL law, but the GOP stepped in at the Federal court level to stop them.)

    27. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      That's right! The media is super-biased when your guy looks bad.

      You don't remember when Hillary's "email scandal" was all that the MSM could talk about? Trump had to up his game to get attention at that point.

    28. Re: surprising lack of coverage by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      None of that stuff is true of Trump.

      He's not ignorant? He's entirely ignorant about the powers the President actually has, or he's just another lying politician.
      He's not bloviating? It's the art of speaking while saying nothing. That's true, Trump usually says -something-. It might be horrible, and you don't know if he's lying or not, but you can't claim there's no substance or commitment in his speeches.
      He's not petty-minded? Good lord, do I have to even go into this?

    29. Re:surprising lack of coverage by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      James O'Keefe

      James O'Keefe? The same guy who lied about ACORN? The guy who lied about NPR? Who tried to punk Abbie Boudreau?

      A guy who wants to be the Michael Moore of the right is not someone we should put our trust in.
      There's only so many times you can cry wolf before people get skeptical of whatever you say and want corroboration before printing it as the truth. "The Press" was severely embarrassed when they ran with his NPR story without verifying it, and they looked like idiots for doing so. No surprise that they might be gunshy about getting burned a second time.

  11. Re:Somebody involved please... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1, 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.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  12. Re: Hope And Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fauxcahontas

  13. either or by Thud457 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Against the pipeline?
    I hope a flaming oil train derails in your backyard Karl Cocknozzle.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:either or by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. Re:either or by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Assuming I have a railroad and a pipeline running through my backyard, the difference would be likelihood of something bad happening and relative severity of each. I'll take the pipeline, all day every day.

    3. Re:either or by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The safety record of pipelines is much better than the safety record of oil trains.
      I'd much rather have the pipeline; my suspicion is that the protesters don't want any oil going anywhere.

  14. Not reporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are activists and there are paid democrat shills but there are no reporters.

    1. Re:Not reporters by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      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?

  15. Re: Hope And Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lieawatha. She of the "high cheekbones". . .

  16. When will the law be on the side of by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    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...

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:When will the law be on the side of by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Q: Why is the law and the force of law enforcement always on the side of the entrenched, obsolete and now destructive interests?
      A: Probably because the minority is acting like thugs and terrorists and assaulting people (which happened in this violent attack, it was not a peaceful protest).

      Q: When will law and law enforcement actually be supporting the implementation of the absolutely clearly necessary changes to our energy system?
      A: When the minority is able to make a reasonable, well supported argument to the majority to the point where it is convinced that it is worth the time and effort. Stop all the irrational bullshit. Statements like: everyone says it must be this way, therefore it is (appeal to majority/bandwagon logical fallacy) and all the climate scientists who make a living getting grants to study global warming say man made climate change is the apocalypse (appeal to biased authority logical fallacy) even though they do not. All our complicated, untestable (except over time) mathematical models, that have been wildly wrong for decades must now be magically accurate, say the end is coming (deus ex machina logical fallacy? just made that one up).

      The climate change nuts (as opposed to clean air/clean water classical environmentalists, of which I am one) have been wrong too often, cried wolf too many times and are losing the case for anthropogenic global warming in the court of public opinion, regardless of what they may tell you. The reality is that if you look at the facts, the globe has been a lot warmer and a lot colder in the past.

      Typically humans do better as a species in warmer weather. Add that to the fact that there used to be palm trees on Antarctica and that all of the fossil fuels that we are burning were once organisms living on the surface of the planet (i.e. not buried underground), and you realize that it is not reasonable to spend trillions of dollars to curb carbon dioxide emissions so that 0.00001% of the population doesn't have to either build 2 foot seawalls or move. Environmental nutjobs have no comprehension of cost benefit analysis, among other things.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    2. Re:When will the law be on the side of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will the law actually be clearing away obstruction to change, instead of advocates of necessary change?

      /quote>

      Like clearing out all the pesky misguided protestors who think building a pipeline will be bad?

      The problem with government is that not everyone agrees on which changes are beneficial and which ones are harmful. Every change inconveniences someone and it's not always easy to determine when that's "worth it".

  17. wow, awesome IDs guys, really by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny

    oh come on, someone with the handle bickerdyke obviously knows what "flaming oil train" and "derail in your backyard" are euphemisms for.
    I was merely wishing Karl Cocknozzle a enjoyable Monday evening.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  18. good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    She's gonna need it. As'friendly' as north Dakota portrays itself, that state has been corrupt for decades. I would not be surprised if she was another mystery suicide in jail where the cameras malfunctioned again and the people paid to sit and watch all went on break.

    The same state where you can't find a lawyer at all to prosecute cops.

    And God help you if you treat natives as humans.

    I wish I was exaggerating. But I left and never looked back.

    If the Dakotas got swallowed up by the gates of hell tomorrow it'd be an improvement.

  19. Ummmm, read the ENTIRE story by p51d007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There were people there DESTROYING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Most likely these "reporters" were caught in "a net". Once it goes to court, they will weed out the troublemakers. Another NON story trying to get everyone worked up, BEFORE all of the facts are know.

    1. Re:Ummmm, read the ENTIRE story by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Umm no you didn't ass-hole. The State Attorney claims she was a protester not a reporter. Something you would have known if you RTFA.

    2. Re:Ummmm, read the ENTIRE story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please show me where in the constitution it says journalists are immune from prosecution

      also show me where it defines what a journalist is, and how a journalist is different from any other citizen

    3. Re:Ummmm, read the ENTIRE story by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > please show me where in the constitution it says journalists are immune from prosecution

      Straw man much? Nobody said that.

      > also show me where it defines what a journalist is, and how a journalist is different from any other citizen

      Show me where there is any evidence that she was acting in any capacity other than to report what was going on?

  20. Damn Democrats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    That liberal North Dakota government is trying to take away our First Amendment rights. Thanks a lot, Obama.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Damn Democrats by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      There are no good guys.

  21. 2 of 3 sources are the defendant, an activist by raymorris · · Score: 1, 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" that suggests to me she probably feel lying about this is perfectly justified in her war against The Man.

  22. Journalists who particpated in illegal activity by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    "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 and no closer relationship to that attack than that, as an object lesson to whomever, worldwide, not to mess with the US. If that isn't illegal under the laws and conventions of international aggression I don't know what is.

    Illegality is a matter of power and perspective, it seems.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Journalists who particpated in illegal activity by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Journalists who particpated in illegal activity by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Journalists who particpated in illegal activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet I'm sure you're willing to set off the vest for Hillary (who voted for the war with full access to classified briefings about what was really going on) while claiming that the whole thing was really Trump's idea because in one off the cuff interview in 2002 months before it started he -- as a private citizen -- said he kinda supported the idea of invading "I guess".

    4. Re:Journalists who particpated in illegal activity by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Very funny Mr. McWeany. Let me spell it out for you. The embedded journalists in the Iraq war were embedded with the US troops, who were engaged in an illegal war of first aggression. By implication, being on the ground in that sovereign country with those invading troops was a crime of aiding and abetting.

       

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    5. Re:Journalists who particpated in illegal activity by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nope. The soldiers would not be charged with aggressive war; that would be the province of the people who made the decision to go to war (specifically Bush, and possibly some close advisers). Even if US soldiers committed war crimes, embedded journalists wouldn't be liable as long as they didn't participate. There's a case for prosecuting Bush for war crimes, and some individual soldiers, but not for most US soldiers or journalists.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Journalists who particpated in illegal activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>(who voted for the war with full access to LIE-FILLED classified briefings about what was really going on)

      FTFY

  23. Re: Hope And Change by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    He's actually doing something about it as opposed to Hillary....

  24. No need to get all riled up... by pepeizquierdo · · Score: 1

    It's just a typo. They meant North KOREA, not North Dakota.

  25. Trespassing to get the story. by galabar · · Score: 1

    http://www.rcfp.org/browse-med...
    https://www.rcfp.org/browse-me...

    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.

    1. Re:Trespassing to get the story. by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Seems trifling. Harmless trespassing may be not technically be legal, but it is no BFD.

    2. Re:Trespassing to get the story. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      So, if I want to do an expose on the president, I'm allowed to sneak into the whitehouse to observe her, right?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Trespassing to get the story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm allowed to sneak into the whitehouse to observe her, right?

      Not until after March 2017.

  26. Re:Somebody involved please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She never committed a crime.

    She documented a violent attack on innocent protesters.

    She should be receiving a Medal.

    You seem to deliberately misreading the article.

    You have it all backwards.

  27. Re:Somebody involved please... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    She was filming what was happening. That's not illegal.

  28. Death Of America by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    Journalists should not only be permitted but deeply encouraged to record events and make them public according to their own viewpoint. That includes inside businesses such as food processing plants and any other place likely to commit certain horrors. That is what America is all about. A free press and the publics right to know even if it does cause a riot or financial collapse of a business or industry. Here is one huge issue. If nothing else a pipeline is a declaration that we will continue to use oil. The burning of any oil based product absolutely assures the death of innocents as it clearly causes cancers, heart diseases and a host of lethal illnesses. Not only should we resent an oil pipeline, but also refineries as well as tanker trucks as well as ships carrying oil as they have already produced severe harm to the environment and human health. How can people trust a government that promotes secrecy and business over the life and health of its people?

    1. Re:Death Of America by galabar · · Score: 1

      Inside abortion clinics?

    2. Re:Death Of America by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Journalists should not only be permitted but deeply encouraged to record events and make them public according to their own viewpoint.

      Yes, as long as they don't break the law themselves.

      That includes inside businesses such as food processing plants and any other place likely to commit certain horrors. That is what America is all about.

      Who decides what is considered a "place of horror"? What if one journalist deceided your office was a place of horror- demanded to be let past security and stand behind your back and film you all day? Should that be legal?

      What if the journalist got a hunch that you are a paedophile and hid cameras all around your bedroom? Is that legal? You think they should be allowed anywhere horrors might occur?

      I think I'm going to become a journalist- I think acts of paedophilia might be happening in Angelina Jolie's shower.

      Here is one huge issue. If nothing else a pipeline is a declaration that we will continue to use oil.

      Ahh... so here's the crux of the issue- a journalist should have the right to break laws and trespass on private property when YOU PERSONALLY agree with the political stand they make.

      Guess what, I'm against the increased use of fossil fuel. I think we should be weening off it as soon as we can. I don't however believe that journalists have the rights to trespass or break the law to further that agenda.

      How can people trust a government that promotes secrecy and business over the life and health of its people?

      How can people trust a government that allows journalists to break the law, but only when they agree with the journalist's political proclivity. The law has to be equal for everyone or it's tyranny.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Death Of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please publish Jim Sadler's home address so all us self-certified journalists can go inside his home uninvited and record whatever horror we think of.
      That must be ok with you Jim because that is your argument.

    4. Re:Death Of America by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Damn straight! If I want to report on the exploitation of women that goes on in strip clubs, then I need to be inside, filming, for weeks, months, years... as long as it takes to get the story!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  29. U asked about legal rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The constituents && constitution allows freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom to protest.
    It's a hanest crime for Corporations to infringe on the Laws && Constitution.

  30. Re: Hope And Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If by "doing something about it" you mean "enjoying the $600K vacation property Hillary bought him," then yes. He's doing something about it.

    You Bernouts really are rubes.

  31. misleading headline by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    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.

  32. USSA by johanw · · Score: 1

    With the best legal system money can buy.

  33. Re:Somebody involved please... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  34. (((GOODMAN))) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we put all the other Jewish criminals in prison too?

    1. Re:(((GOODMAN))) by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      But... I thought a good man was hard to find? (Or is it a hard man is good to find? I forget...)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  35. Consider the source... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the information about this case either comes from the organization itself (Democracy Now) or second tier internet news sites like TechCrunch and Jezebel. No "real" news site is covering it, not even NPR. That should tell you something :-)

  36. Update: Judge threw out charge by apenzott · · Score: 5, Informative

    N. Dakota charges reporter with 'riot' for covering protest--but gets slapped down by judge
    http://www.latimes.com/busines...

    --
    The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
  37. this isn't being reported by mainstream media by dmoen · · Score: 1

    The story hasn't been picked up by Canadian media at all, and by hardly anybody in the US. However, in England, the BBC and the Guardian are running this story.

    The situation might be different if this was taking place in China; then it would be reported by N.A. media as a human rights story.

    --
    I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
  38. Proof that American News is Censored! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She should not be charged with riot charges. Her report was true and news worthy. Hopefully she gets a trial of her peers and turns the tables on who is charging her. This solidifies my belief that we are not truly free. Step out of line and blam...

  39. Re:Somebody involved please... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    She never committed a crime.

    She committed at least one, she was trespassing.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  40. You are the one with emotional attachment by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    to the status quo and the cheap conveniences it grants you, and it is on this basis that you oppose change, and create tortured arguments appearing to be rational but grounded in wishful thinking.

    On the "more CO2, methane in atmosphere leads to solar-heat-trapping and global warming" scientific issue, the scientific verdict is crystal clear, even if the nth degree accuracy of models of complex local effects is not assured. That level of accuracy of sub-effect predictions and exact timing is irrelevant, so long as the key drivers of the energy retention on the planet are understood, and they are.

    On the "humans are responsible for greatly increased CO2 and methane release than over the last million years or so", that scientific case is also decided with a yes.

    Scientific evidence is on the side of a clear significant rapid warming effect. Emotional opposition to change is driving the opposition to action. Where those supporting change in an attempt to moderate this physical planetary problem become emotional is only because they are frustrated by the irrational and seemly self-centred opposition to the changes needed.Mostly, those wanting change here are scared shitless by their intelligent, accurate read of the scientific consensus.

    Those opposed are childishly saying "I found one industry-paid phd in a different field schill over here who says it's a crock."
    "Warming and need for swift action" is supported by science and rationality.
    "There is no warming caused by us, and no action is needed' is supported by emotion and irrationality.

    So get it straight who are the know-nothing emotional ones on this issue.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:You are the one with emotional attachment by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Fact: Climate models have been wrong for years:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

      Fact: The globe has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, by a lot over the last 500,000 years:
      http://www.climate4you.com/ima...

      By claiming any scientist or study that doesn't agree with you is "industry sponsored" you are engaging in the logical fallacy "damning the source." It is irrelevant what the source is. If there is evidence of fraud in the work, then cite it (you cant). You have to look at the facts as they stand, regardless of the source. I am pretty sure that the only ones who have been found out committing fraud were the climate scientists at NASA.
      http://principia-scientific.or...

      Saying that it is what the majority of scientists believes is demonstrably false (see the link below) as well as a logical fallacy "appeal to majority logical fallacy."
      http://www.naturalnews.com/052...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    2. Re:You are the one with emotional attachment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it up.

      Even ExxonMobil now publicly admits to anthropogenic global warming, is pushing for a carbon tax, and has cut loose the professional lying organizations they had been paying to do their denial dirty work for them.

  41. Make them pay by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Well it appears she did not assist,act,take part in any of the protests and fighting that went on. So she should sue and sue them so it hurts. Arresting people in this case looks like intimidation tactic the government should pay dearly for.. that's my opinion anyways.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  42. Bill of Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much I support fossil fuels they will be violating their first amendment rights!

  43. Re: Hope And Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When all the Wasp trustfunder babies have to start worrying about their "legacy" admissions to the Bastions of Power (starting from Manhattan kindergartens through high-end prep schools and Harvard and Yale and Stanford and the rest), then the rest of us will worry about twisting any fact we can or pulling any string available to get past the filters that are stacked against us as we try to crawl up to where the self-selecting elites have lived for untold generations.

    tl;dr: fuck you.

  44. Justice in Amerika! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the new normal. When the actual honest 'free press' is locked up for deviating from the party-line!

  45. Pipeline by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I just think it's hard to believe most of the protesters' claims about 'violation' when from what I've read, there's ALREADY a gas pipeline running along the route the oil pipeline is proposed to follow?

    --
    -Styopa
  46. Re:Somebody involved please... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Strange that they would drop that charge then - since that would usually mean they don't think they can prove she committed said crime.

    Given she must have already been found guilty by a court of law right? Or does a presumption of innocence only apply to people who agree with you?

  47. Breaking news: Judge dismisses riot charges. by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the local paper.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  48. surprising coverage on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is slashdot covering a story on how a reporter is being treated by the state? There is nothing high technology in that. There is nothing high technology about protesting construction of an oil pipeline, unless some robots were protesting. This story shouldn't be here.

    1. Re:surprising coverage on slashdot by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Why is slashdot covering a story on how a reporter is being treated by the state? There is nothing high technology in that. There is nothing high technology about protesting construction of an oil pipeline, unless some robots were protesting. This story shouldn't be here.

      It's Network Decay in action. The same reason why the Sci-Fi Channel started airing professional wrestling. 18-24 year old males like Star Trek, and 18-24 year old males also like professional wrestling. Therefore, in an effort to make the channel appeal to MORE 18-24 year old males, start showing wrestling on your Sci-Fi Channel, even rebrand it to Syfy to show how much you're branching out.

      Slashdot is the same way. Newer viewers (and I really noticed this happening when Jon Katz started writing his tangentially-related Columbine Massacre articles here) like to pretend that Slashdot was "News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters" as if that comma was big OR. But it wasn't. It was a tech-related website. Then the occasional politics-related story crept in and editors noticed it would get a lot of views and a ton of comments! And the slide began, and it still continues.

  49. Mislead much? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    My understand was that they were not arrested for reporting the story, but rather for the trespassing they had to do in order to observe the other trespassers in order to cover the story. Should news reporters be allowed to violate the law to get a story or not? (If the stories that the pipeline company continued working despite a court order requiring them to cease work are true, then I tend to side with the protesters.)

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Mislead much? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      She was initially arrested for trespassing, then the AG dropped those charges (suggesting that they weren't going to stick) and went with rioting, and the charge was thrown out by judge. You seem to believe that an arrest means that someone was impartially judged to have probably violated a law, like it should be.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  50. Judge Rejects "Riot" Charges Against Amy Goodman by Greg+Hullender · · Score: 2
  51. stupid DA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good for you Judge John Grinsteiner. You should have a good talk with your ex-DA.

  52. Just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because something is on private property does not mean you don't have any right not to be there I mean sure you could say legally they don't but that didn't stop bush from invading Iraq or anyone else from starting a war

    Sometimes a Wrong does make a right it's called having morals and ethics which are very dwindling these days and sorely needed in the media

    How many corporations and greedy people have Rewritten the laws or simply broken the laws to get more money or to screw people over and it was okay because they were one of those rich people

    Sometimes you have to break the rules to stand up for what you believe is right