Slashdot Mirror
Journalist Cleared of Riot Charges in South Dakota (nbcnews.com)
Her video went viral, viewed more than 14 million times, and triggering concerns online when she was threatened with prison. But a North Dakota judge "refused to authorize riot charges against award-winning journalist Amy Goodman for her reporting on an attack against Native American-led anti-pipeline protesters." An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes NBC News:
Goodman described the victory as a "great vindication of the First Amendment," although McLean County State's Attorney Ladd Erickson told The New York Times that additional charges were possible. "I believe they want to keep the investigation open and see if there is any evidence in the unedited and unpublished videos that we could better detail in an affidavit for the judge," Erickson told the newspaper.
The native Americans "were attempting to block the destruction of sacred sites, including ancestral burial grounds," according to a new article co-authored by Goodman about her experiences, which argues that "Attempts to criminalize nonviolent land and water defenders, humiliate them and arrest journalists should not pave the way for this pipeline."
The native Americans "were attempting to block the destruction of sacred sites, including ancestral burial grounds," according to a new article co-authored by Goodman about her experiences, which argues that "Attempts to criminalize nonviolent land and water defenders, humiliate them and arrest journalists should not pave the way for this pipeline."
As a North Dakotan, I've always suspected no one knows the difference.
Many may say "this is the justice system working as intended" . If you are one of those people: you are wrong. This is the justice system being abused to send a message to all who disagree. "careful, we can hurt you. you mind want to consider before becoming going against us."
And people still wonder how we managed to end up with the presidential candidates we currently have... We do not vote in anticipating for a bright and better future anymore. We vote in fear.
I hope Amy Goodman turns around and goes on the offensive against the pieces of shit that puked out these bullshit charges against her.
Well rassle up your rooty-tooty-point-and-shooty and go take care of them radical leftists, Dippity Internet Warrior.
This might have happened decades ago, when things like Watergate were possible. But now the media are fully beholden to the Ruling Elite, and the Patriot Act is there to punish those who think otherwise. Things will go as the Caste decide.
Goodman works for the independent and viewer funded Democracy Now! network. She is one of the anchors. I agree that a lot of the media are under control, but not her.
Look at the name. I'd wager it's not a chip. Rather he's full of piss and vinegar.
Silence is a state of mime.
SHUSH! She broke a law. Breitbart and Drudge told him, and thus was it so! Details are for those who hate America.
But heaven forbid people want to build an oil pipeline, something that actually makes roads safer and actually saves energy: then progressives are up in arms and start protesting and rioting, and they are not above using Native Americans as props in their political theater.
Until you start using the most primitive of available technologies to make oil pipelines safe, like double-walled pipes with interstitial leak monitors, you can stick those oil pipelines up your ass.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There is a migration movement in New Hampshire called the Free State Project and its attracting a lot of liberty-minded individuals to the state for the purpose of pursing liberty and freedom. The underlying philosophy is that you should not utilize violence, fraud, or coercion to achieve social or political goals. Unfortunately that's exactly what a state does. If there is no victim, violence, theft, fraud, or coercion there should be no crime. Principled libertarians (as opposed to the frauds that make up the national libertarian party, ie republicans took it over essentially) don't think we should have guards on the board deciding who can come and go, that the state should be giving permission to travel/drive (drivers licenses), have a construct called 'intellectual property'/copy'right'/etc, or stealing money for social programs such as government indoctrination programs (ie public schools). No victim, violence, coercion, theft, or fraud there should be no crime.
So as one can imagine government agents have repeatedly violently attacked the most active and public individuals and politicians in this movement. Failing that they have libelled and slandered people. A prominent example of that is police and various government agents have attacked a radio host Ian Freeman, here in Keene, New Hampshire, numerous times.
Once they raided his place, of which he rents some rooms, has a studio, and an activist center in search of building code violations. They got him on a dead battery in a smoke alarm (they came with warrant in hand and police where normally a letter would be sent and no warrant would be issued to conduct the search, but the idea in and of itself is just unbelievable, that the government can come in and search at any time for building code violations, yet this really happens).
More recently those who hate him have been spreading misinformation about his stance on age of consent in an effort to paint him as a child molester. They twisted a story about his sexual experiences as a young person with an older person into him supporting child molestation. The FBI even got in on the act shortly after he attacked the FBI on the air for *DISTRIBUTING CHILD PORN* (if children are harmed by the act of viewing CP they were being hypocritical for distributing it). Two weeks later the FBI raided his home, stole his studio equipment (10s of thousands of dollars worth), his tenants computers, his computers, and so on. 30+ computing devices were stolen in the raid and these people will never get them back. He has not been arrested and this was nothing more than a smear campaign to ruin his image. It's hard to ruin a person's image who advocates non-violence and peace- but make it out as though the person is a child molester and the people will do it for you.
That's a bullshit argument. The pipeline uses whatever technologies federal regulators imposed on it. And that's obviously not going to satisfy either Amy Goodman or the tribal chiefs.
You're projecting your own desires.
By all means, celebrate Amy Goodman's charges being dropped. But did you know there are many other journalists also facing charges for covering the pipeline resistance?
Two documentarians facing decades in prison.
Four Unicorn riot journalists facing charges in North Dakota and Iowa, and another was arrested on Saturday as part of the largest set of arrests in one incident to date.
Follow /r/NoDAPL for more.
ourpla.net is your planet
In the 24 October issue, there's an article about former detective Peter Forcelli, who now works to get wrongfully convicted folks exonerated. It's a sad tale about failings (and biases) of juries, judges, cops, and DAs. Just like the quote in this case, where the local DA wants to keep the case open just in case they can find something else indictable. He got caught doing bullshit and now wants to cover his ass regardless of the truth.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Other journalists are also facing charges. This is not over by a long shot.
It should be noted that the charges are being brought at county level. State/Federal prosecutors can AND SHOULD step in to curb this kind of legal system abuse.
She wasn't charged with trespassing.
Oh look! An idiot, loose on the internet!
That's a bullshit argument. The pipeline uses whatever technologies federal regulators imposed on it. And that's obviously not going to satisfy either Amy Goodman or the tribal chiefs.
Ah, so you admit the glorious job creators wouldn't give two wet squirts about safety if the evil government didn't impose upon them to do so!
I feel like progress has been made.
Well, yes, as owners of the land that the pipeline runs over, the government is naturally the institution demanding safety. What makes government "evil" is that it usually acquires property by force, gives it away to powerful special interests, and does a piss poor job managing and preserving it.
That is, if this land (and the Indian territory) actually was private property and managed as private property, then there would be nothing to riot and protest about.
as owners of the land that the pipeline runs over, the government is naturally the institution demanding safety. What makes government "evil" is that it usually acquires property by force, gives it away to powerful special interests, and does a piss poor job managing and preserving it.
That is, if this land (and the Indian territory) actually was private property and managed as private property, then there would be nothing to riot and protest about.
Wait, is it evil to acquire property by force, or not? Because... how do you think the government got the land this nation is based upon?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
To a classical liberal like myself, of course it is.
If you're a progressive, socialist, or other kind of statist, on the other hand, then the use of force to take people's property is necessarily OK, since your kind of government wouldn't function without it.
Some of the land was taken by force, other land was simply unoccupied.
Are you trying to get at something?
What you call "the natives" were thousands of different tribes, groups, and nations. And there was plenty of unoccupied land after European diseases had (unintentionally) killed off more than 95% of the population of the Americas. You're demonstrating your ignorance and racism by reducing the pre-Columbian people and their diverse political and social systems to "the natives" (and, of course, they are actually no more "native" than Europeans).
The pre-Columbian people that land was taken from are dead; you can't return anything to them. What you are suggesting is to distribute government property based on race, which is the kind of policy espoused by racists and fascists; you know, people like you.
You're saying it was OK to take land as long as you kill the occupants first, as long as it's your doings that killed them but it's not really your fault.
The natives were here first. Sure, their ancestors came from East Africa like all the rest of us, but centuries or millenia of one group occupying land does qualify them as natives, if the word has any meaning. US settlers didn't seem to care much about the diverse political and social systems, as long as they could get rid of them and take their land.
Do you really mean to say that it's OK to take land provided the people who were alive when you came are now dead? Are you advocating a 100% inheritance tax or something? The Native Americans there can trace their ancestry back a long ways, and are the heirs of the people the land was stolen from.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The pre-Columbian people that land was taken from are dead; you can't return anything to them.
I think you mean pre-Columbus. Pre-Columbian would be prior to the founding of Columbia. That would also be the case, but it's not really what you're going for.
Regardless, some of those peoples are still around, in spite of our government's best efforts to commit genocide.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you don't understand a word, I suggest you use a dictionary.
Well, yes, some of those peoples are still around, which matters to racists and fascists, who believe that races and peoples have rights and share collective guilt. None of those people are still around, which is what matters from the point of justice and liberty.
Well, you should know, since it's people with your political beliefs that call for, and commit, genocides.
Well, yes, some of those peoples are still around, which matters to racists and fascists, who believe that races and peoples have rights and share collective guilt. None of those people are still around, which is what matters from the point of justice and liberty.
It was the peoples who owned the land. They were very much territorial. In some cases, land was owned by a smaller group like a tribe or tribelet. The land was taken from them collectively, so any redress must be to them collectively. You might not recognize the value of the collective, but they do.
The truth is that the land you currently possess was taken from the prior owners by force. It's quite possible that they or their descendants are still around, and if you actually believed that taking property by force is wrong, you'd give it back to them. You don't, but you sure to like to claim the moral high ground that you're not even vaguely close to approaching. There's no way you can in good conscience sit there and rant about property rights you clearly don't believe in, and also be taken seriously.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Stolen property is only returned to someone who can actually establish legal ownership. That means demonstrating that the item was originally owned by the person and that the person now making a claim has inherited that property. Furthermore, there are statutes of limitations and issues of jurisdiction, which means that even if you owned something once, you may not be able to recover it from a new owner.
What you are saying is that because a long dead person of "race A" had stuff taken from them by a long-dead person of "race B", today, people of "race B" owe a debt to people of "race A". That's not how property rights work, sorry.
The truth is that pre-Columbian Americans had taken that land by force as well, multiple times. The truth is that every human on this planet was, at some point, ousted from their property or homeland. My own family lost all their property multiple times over the past few centuries. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Of course, I take the moral high ground vis-a-vis your position: your position is the position of racists and Nazis. The Nazis also viewed themselves as the original tribal inhabitants of Northern Europe and their entire war was about demanding "their" land back that the Roman empire and other "invaders" had taken from them. Those kinds of theories are racist bullshit, no matter whether they are applied to pre-Roman Germanic tribes or pre-Columbian American tribes.