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.
Other than piss of people with a shit ton of money and expose their illegal activities.
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.
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.
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.
And they have the right to build a pipe line through Native American land....think again Potsy.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
According to the local paper.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.