[thumb]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/BBE9/production/_91950184_gettyimages-83952353.jpg[/thumb]
[quote=BBC][b]US journalist Amy Goodman is facing charges of participating in a "riot" after filming Native American-led protests over an oil pipeline in North Dakota.[/b]
The Democracy Now! reporter said she would surrender to authorities on Monday in response to the charge.
District Judge John Grinsteiner will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support the riot charge.
Ms Goodman filmed the crackdown on protesters by authorities last month.
"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," Ms Goodman said.[/quote]
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37676332]Source[/url]
Isnt there laws that protect journalists in this exact situation? You would think that their job and passion on reporting unbiased news should be protected by the first amendment.
No, there aren't laws to protect journalist if they trespass onto private land.
Journalist rarely have exceptions for them. Overwhelmingly most laws treat journalist like any other citizen.
Because why should journalist have some special exception to trespass?
[QUOTE=Kigen;51215736]No, there aren't laws to protect journalist if they trespass onto private land.
Journalist rarely have exceptions for them. Overwhelmingly most laws treat journalist like any other citizen.
Because why should journalist have some special exception to trespass?[/QUOTE]
so then why is she being charged for rioting rather than trespass
[QUOTE=Kigen;51215736]No, there aren't laws to protect journalist if they trespass onto private land.
Journalist rarely have exceptions for them. Overwhelmingly most laws treat journalist like any other citizen.
[B]Because why should journalist have some special exception to trespass[/B]?[/QUOTE]
Because important events transpire on private land. Not to say they should get an automatic free pass. It should work like Free Use. It doesn't mean that you get out of going to court, but journalists should have some legal defense in cases where legitimate investigation / news coverage (that are in the public interest) is done while, say, trespassing.
The nice thing is that this is a legal defense, so things like the hulk hogan case still mean those who are too invasive are still effectively sued. But then private property owners cannot stifle news coverage of stuff they don't like.
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
Granted, that is assuming this wasn't already the case - which it very well might be.
[QUOTE=bord2tears;51215807]Because important events transpire on private land. Not to say they should get an automatic free pass. It should work like Free Use. It doesn't mean that you get out of going to court, but journalists should have some legal defense in cases where legitimate investigation / news coverage (that are in the public interest) is done while, say, trespassing.
The nice thing is that this is a legal defense, so things like the hulk hogan case still mean those who are too invasive are still effectively sued. But then private property owners cannot stifle news coverage of stuff they don't like.
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
Granted, that is assuming this wasn't already the case - which it very well might be.[/QUOTE]
No they shouldn't. Property is property. If journalists get a free pass because they were "investigating" something, then the concept of property means nothing
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51215782]so then why is she being charged for rioting rather than trespass[/QUOTE]
She actually was at first, but they dropped the trespass charges. Ownership of the land being federal or private at the time was pretty murky, but I'm pretty sure it was still technically fed land so it should be public.
[URL]http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t12-1c25.pdf#nameddest=12p1-25-01[/URL]
Relevant riot law.
[quote]"Riot" means a public disturbance involving an assemblage of five or more persons
which by tumultuous and violent conduct creates grave danger of damage or injury to
property or persons or substantially obstructs law enforcement or other government
function.[/quote]
I recall a fence being destroyed or damaged during the protest, so they're able to satisfy the definition.
[quote]
A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he engages in a riot, as defined in
section 12.1-25-01.[/quote]
So it's probably gonna be a legal rodeo of attempting to classify the definition of engages in as "was there". If she didn't leave and law enforcers said to disperse, then they'd have a pretty clear case, but just being there's a pretty tough sell.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51215885]No they shouldn't. Property is property. If journalists get a free pass because they were "investigating" something, then the concept of property means nothing[/QUOTE]
What about the principle of least harm? Even Texas allows necessity defenses.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51215736]No, there aren't laws to protect journalist if they trespass onto private land.
Journalist rarely have exceptions for them. Overwhelmingly most laws treat journalist like any other citizen.
Because why should journalist have some special exception to trespass?[/QUOTE]
Malicious/criminal intent isn't present. It looks to me like they're just looking for an excuse to charge her on a technicality. Why, though? It wouldn't serve in the public interest.
It sounds like the state government there is somewhat in league with the oil company involved in the debacle, and as such is acting punitively against this reporter for putting out the video showing the guard dogs mauling some of the protesters. Legally, she may or may not be able to be held liable. The problem behind this charge is the [I]intent[/I] as of now, and that says a lot about putting out information that's potentially damaging to those with money and power in the US these days.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51215782]so then why is she being charged for rioting rather than trespass[/QUOTE]
To make an example out of her. She documented the event when the pipeline's private security forces were using pepper spray and dogs to put the protesters down. They want to scare other journalists out of doing the same kind of thing. The last thing organizations who are doing extremely questionable things want is for muckraking journalists to expose them and call them out on their actions. [url=https://cpj.org/2016/09/arrest-warrant-for-muckraking-us-journalist.php]The CPJ issued a statement on this a month ago[/url].
She did nothing wrong, and being charged with rioting is obviously an intimidation strategy.
by your logic, I can claim im a journalist for a internet blog site and go trespass on a Starbucks after closing time. If you imply only major news companies can cover it, pretty sure that isnt allowed either. Journalists shouldnt be allowed to trespass on private property
regardless, why was she arrested for rioting. she'll only get like a 500 dollar fine, obviously but still this is stupid
[QUOTE=Govna;51216025]To make an example out of her. She documented the event when the pipeline's private security forces were using pepper spray and dogs to put the protesters down. They want to scare other journalists out of doing the same kind of thing. The last thing organizations who are doing extremely questionable things want is for muckraking journalists to expose them and call them out on their actions. [url=https://cpj.org/2016/09/arrest-warrant-for-muckraking-us-journalist.php]The CPJ issued a statement on this a month ago[/url].
She did nothing wrong, and being charged with rioting is obviously an intimidation strategy.[/QUOTE]
Or, maybe she actually broke the law, along with the protesters. Being a journalist does not grant you any special privileges to break the law.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51215885]No they shouldn't. Property is property. If journalists get a free pass because they were "investigating" something, then the concept of property means nothing[/QUOTE]
Why should it be so strict? It's a chunk of land you own because other people say you do.
Many countries are even much less strict on this, many european countries for example allow the "right to roam" where you're allowed to be on private & public property with restrictions (basically don't destroy it, don't get close to stuff like homes) and it works just fine.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51215885]No they shouldn't. Property is property. If journalists get a free pass because they were "investigating" something, then the concept of property means nothing[/QUOTE]
they don't get a free pass because they wantonly are investigating something, they get leniency because they either have probable cause to investigate or they are acting in the public's interest (in this case) to document what is there.
this is just as heavy handed as charging greenpeace with terrorism because they parked a kyack infront of an oil rig
[QUOTE=Sableye;51216543]they don't get a free pass because they wantonly are investigating something, they get leniency because they either have probable cause to investigate or they are acting in the public's interest (in this case) to document what is there.[/QUOTE]
I think the main thing here is free pass vs leniency. Intent grants you leniency, or a lighter punishment, not a free pass from any punishment whatsoever.
Regardless of the law it's still up to a jury to decide guilt, and I doubt it would be an unanimous decision.
[QUOTE=bord2tears;51215807]Because important events transpire on private land. Not to say they should get an automatic free pass. It should work like Free Use. It doesn't mean that you get out of going to court, but journalists should have some legal defense in cases where legitimate investigation / news coverage (that are in the public interest) is done while, say, trespassing.
The nice thing is that this is a legal defense, so things like the hulk hogan case still mean those who are too invasive are still effectively sued. But then private property owners cannot stifle news coverage of stuff they don't like.
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
Granted, that is assuming this wasn't already the case - which it very well might be.[/QUOTE]
Question: And if you remove this barrier how many people will be stalked by paparazzi? How about that privately owned home that was broken into by news journalists after a terrorist attack?
[QUOTE=Sableye;51216543]they don't get a free pass because they wantonly are investigating something, they get leniency because they either have probable cause to investigate or they are acting in the public's interest (in this case) to document what is there.
this is just as heavy handed as charging greenpeace with terrorism because they parked a kyack infront of an oil rig[/QUOTE]
Probable cause? They're not police officers. Imagine if a police officer knew there was a crime going on inside a house. Instead of getting a warrant, he just grabbed a video camera, walked in, arrested them all and said "I'm a journalist".
Sure, it's a stretch, but why should a private citizen whose job is no more or less important than mine or yours be able to invade someone's privacy or ownership over their land because they have a [I]hunch[/I]. If there's probable cause, call the police.
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51216552]What about private venues like Trump rallies? It's okay for him to ban any media that publishes negative things about him?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he owns the place (or at least has some kind of dominion over it to decide who gets to show up there)
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51216552]What about private venues like Trump rallies? It's okay for him to ban any media that publishes negative things about him?[/QUOTE]
Yes, why wouldn't it be? The media can report they weren't allowed to enter the rally and the public can make of that what they will.
Lest we forget Hillary has held private speeches while on the campaign.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51216078]Or, maybe she actually broke the law, along with the protesters. Being a journalist does not grant you any special privileges to break the law.[/QUOTE]
No. She documented the event in accordance with journalistic standards, the CPJ agrees that this was all she was doing (and also they agree that the charge is bullshit), and she did not have anything to do with a "riot". It's a deliberately bogus charge that's being put against her to discourage other journalists from following her example as a muckraker documenting controversial events. The authorities in North Dakota and the pipeline are pissed off because she documented the latter's private security using excessive force against the protestors (dogs and pepper spray), and that's why they're going after her.
Or are we going to play dumb now about how politics works and deny the existence of intimidation strategies?
[QUOTE=Minimal;51215720]Isnt there laws that protect journalists in this exact situation? You would think that their job and passion on reporting unbiased news should be protected by the first amendment.[/QUOTE]
that, in america seems to be slowly moving away
[QUOTE=Govna;51216852]No. She documented the event in accordance with journalistic standards, the CPJ agrees that this was all she was doing (and also they agree that the charge is bullshit), and she did not have anything to do with a "riot". It's a deliberately bogus charge that's being put against her to discourage other journalists from following her example as a muckraker documenting controversial events. The authorities in North Dakota and the pipeline are pissed off because she documented the latter's private security using excessive force against the protestors (dogs and pepper spray), and that's why they're going after her.
Or are we going to play dumb now about how politics works and deny the existence of intimidation strategies?[/QUOTE]
So she was breaking no laws? She wasn't on private property without permission?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51216870]So she was breaking no laws? She wasn't on private property without permission?[/QUOTE]
Not rioting, which is what she has been charged with, no. They originally charged her with trespassing but dropped it because ownership of the land is not clearly defined as being either federal or private, as Cliff2 pointed out:
[QUOTE=Cliff2;51215950]She actually was at first, but they dropped the trespass charges. Ownership of the land being federal or private at the time was pretty murky, but I'm pretty sure it was still technically fed land so it should be public.
[URL]http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t12-1c25.pdf#nameddest=12p1-25-01[/URL][/quote]
[QUOTE=Govna;51216930]Not rioting, which is what she has been charged with, no. They originally charged her with trespassing but dropped it because ownership of the land is not clearly defined as being either federal or private, as Cliff2 pointed out:[/QUOTE]
Ah, then I'll wait to see what the judge says. I don't all of the events that unfolded, so it would be wrong to assume innocence or guilt.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51216552]What about private venues like Trump rallies? It's okay for him to ban any media that publishes negative things about him?[/QUOTE]
Nothing stops them from staying outside.
[url]http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/judge-refuses-to-sign-off-on-charges-against-journalist-amy/article_06ade343-892c-5177-b201-907142d1ab03.html[/url]
Judge threw out the case.
[QUOTE=Cliff2;51218074][url]http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/judge-refuses-to-sign-off-on-charges-against-journalist-amy/article_06ade343-892c-5177-b201-907142d1ab03.html[/url]
Judge threw out the case.[/QUOTE]
That's great to hear. From everything I've seen so far, the whole thing was ridiculous from the start.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51216555]I think the main thing here is free pass vs leniency. Intent grants you leniency, or a lighter punishment, not a free pass from any punishment whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
Motive, not intent. But yeah. (She did commit an intentional trespass of the area, rather than negligent)
[QUOTE=Swilly;51216626]Question: And if you remove this barrier how many people will be stalked by paparazzi? How about that privately owned home that was broken into by news journalists after a terrorist attack?[/QUOTE]
The same number, stalking by Paprarazzi is not the same as investigations done in the public interest.
I would argue those that did that would not succeed in showing a reasonable cause for doing so as their actions actively harmed a police investigation.
These questions, to me, are on the same line of: If we allow free use what is to stop people from playing a full movie and calling it a "review"?
Don't get me wrong, all of these sorts of cases of abuse will happen. But do we punish all to stop the minority?
Do we ban people from recording police conduct because that arrest is occurring on private property? Is damning evidence of corruption any less meaningful if the recording was done while trespassing?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.