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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This AG needs to be smacked with a civil rights violation charge and lawsuit.
They first charged Amy Goodman with criminal trespass. The AG had to drop the charge, because it was laughably bogus, as I will demonstrate below.
This is how dumb this AG is:
1. The Native Americans wanted her there. /buy it/ instead of going the cheap route and getting easements.
2. It's their land.
3. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN EASEMENT DOESN'T MEAN YOU OWN THE FUCKING LAND. If you want to own the land under a pipeline, fucking
Ergo, there was no fucking trespass, let alone /criminal/ trespass.
There are no charges for assault with a deadly weapon against the "security" idiots for using /dogs/ against the protesters.
This AG doesn't even fucking understand simple trespass. Where did he get his law degree? From a Cracker Jack box?
And now he "doesn't consider her a journalist" because he doesn't like her attitude. THAT DOES NOT NULLIFY AMY GOODMAN'S FUCKING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, YOU IDIOT.
Amy Goodman got $100k out of the last time her civil rights were violated. She should go after the AG /personally/.
--
BMO
Because race-baiters aren't a threat to the establishment and serve to keep the public distracted from real issues.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the local paper.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.