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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on Monday October 17, 2016 @05:21AM from the topsy-turvy-world dept.

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.

24 of 357 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Get it MFers? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-17 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

No. Dissent. Allowed.
1. Re:Get it MFers? by Hylandr · 2016-10-17 05:57 · 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 · 2016-10-17 06:08 · 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 Vermonter · 2016-10-17 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because race-baiters aren't a threat to the establishment and serve to keep the public distracted from real issues.
Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-17 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

I feel like I'm not getting the full picture here
1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-17 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You don't need the full picture You must only feel rage.
2. Re:Hmm... by jedidiah · 2016-10-17 05:35 · 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 BlueStrat · 2016-10-17 05:53 · 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.
4. Re:Hmm... by Archtech · 2016-10-17 06:00 · 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.
5. Re:Hmm... by NatasRevol · 2016-10-17 06:11 · 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
6. Re:Hmm... by amiga3D · 2016-10-17 06:18 · 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.
7. Re:Hmm... by bmo · 2016-10-17 06:26 · 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
8. Re:Hmm... by taustin · 2016-10-17 06:52 · 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.)
9. Re:Hmm... by lgw · 2016-10-17 07:04 · 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.
10. Re:Hmm... by hey! · 2016-10-17 07:49 · 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.
11. Re:Hmm... by sjames · 2016-10-17 07:58 · 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.
Good luck by MBGMorden · 2016-10-17 05:27 · 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 · 2016-10-17 05:30 · 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 Wrath0fb0b · 2016-10-17 06:06 · 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.
She's not charged for being a journalist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-17 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

She's charged for taking part in the riot - the evidence? She filmed herself trespassing on private property along with the rioters, filmed it, then turned around and claimed she's immune because she's a journalist.
Re:She did nothing wrong by bluefoxlucid · 2016-10-17 05:48 · 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.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Ummmm, read the ENTIRE story by p51d007 · 2016-10-17 06:15 · 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.
2 of 3 sources are the defendant, an activist by raymorris · 2016-10-17 06:19 · 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.
Re:She did nothing wrong by meta-monkey · 2016-10-17 06:38 · 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.