5 ms·

While it is pretty stupid that the state of North Dakota is issuing an arrest warrant for a journalist. I take issue with the sensational headline, she is facin

by eddieh 10y ago

While it is pretty stupid that the state of North Dakota is issuing an arrest warrant for a journalist. I take issue with the sensational headline, she is facing 30 days in jail for misdemeanor trespassing. That isn't even remotely close to facing prison time. Journalist don't have a right to trespass and there is precedent for criminal charges. Just a quick search brought up Arizona v. Wells. Wells trespassing seems minor in comparison what Goodman allegedly did. Goodman followed protestors into the construction area after "they broke down a wire fence by stepping and jumping on it". I'm not defending either the state of North Dakota, the Sheriff's Department, or Goodman — just stating some facts. Also IANAL. EDIT: I'm sure a journalist can be charged with rioting too. If they can't prove trespassing, I'm not sure how they'll prove rioting. It is bullshit, but not without precedent. That's all I'm saying. EDIT 2: This isn't a constructive discussion anymore. I'm only trying to bring up a different way of thinking about the issue, not everything is an affront on our rights. This may be a case of that, but it is at least in the interest of everyone to discuss it objectively. IDK, I'd probably just delete this comment if I could.

swsieber 10y ago
So, there was an update to the article, she was charged with inciting a riot, not trespassing, quote: It should be noted that the original charge leveled against Goodman was not riot but criminal trespass, also a misdemeanor. However, just days days before Goodman was set to appear in court, the prosecutor, Ladd Erickson, switched up the charges because, he admitted in an email to Goodman’s lawyer, Tom Dickson, there were “legal issues with proving the notice of trespassing requirements in the statute.”
- sitkack 10y ago
  "We are going to charge you with something, we just haven't figured out which law yet..."
  - throwaway98237 10y ago
    Yep. And this is the take-away. We shouldn't ask that the burden-of-proof the State must meet be something like: "Did the State eventually have a good legal argument?" We should require that the State be using its (considerable) resources to achieve the best "public good". It is my opinion that throwing charges until they stick at a journalist (the only constitutionally protected profession) in order to bully them from doing their job when it is not in the interest of the State, is not in the best interest of the public. That is not creating a public good.
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      Publishing and speaking are constitutionally protected acts. The other things journalists may decide to do (e.g., trespassing to gather evidence or threatening others) are no more protected than for any other citizen.
Mithaldu 10y ago
According to the article they are charging her with being a rioter (while also claiming she is not a journalist), not with trespass, and this specifically because of “legal issues with proving the notice of trespassing requirements in the statute.”
photogrammetry 10y ago
You have unfortunately missed the point. If she allows herself to be put in jail, even for a "paltry 30 days" as you claim, it sets a dangerous precedent and gives the government and bureaucracy the power to determine what journalism is "balanced" and what journalism is unacceptable. This conflicts directly with our First Amendment, which grants the people freedom of the press. It is not reasonable to give up and serve 30 days in jail for a false crime you have been charged with unconstitutionally. You seem so nonchalant about the potential jailtime, since it's "so small." Have you ever heard this poem? "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." It does not matter at what scale this constitutional abuse occurs. That it is happening at all should be horrifying to you; have you seen what happens to government dissidents and journalists in 'civilized' countries like Russia and China?
- eddieh 10y ago
  I don't think I'm missing the point. You can't invoke a constitutional right for otherwise breaking the law. EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murderer would just need to say the murder was their performance art.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - photogrammetry 10y ago
    Have you read a single Supreme Court decision? Your entire comment is factually wrong.
  - ebbv 10y ago
    Yes you absolutely can. That's the point of freedom of the press being part of the First Amendment. Laws that would prevent the press from fulfilling its constitutional role lose out to the first amendment. Journalists are allowed to protect their sources, where the rest of us might be compelled in a court to testify. It doesn't give them blanket immunity from all laws, but it does provide them certain protections. This is a clear case where the state is overreaching. EDIT: > EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murder would just need to say the murder was their performance art. No. That is not remotely true. You're being ridiculous.
monocasa 10y ago
They dropped the trespassing charges. She's now being charged with rioting. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/15/breaking_nd_prosecutor_seeks_riot_charges http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/15/breaking_nd_prosecuto...
alexbeloi 10y ago
The charges have been changed from criminal trespass to riot, they seemingly did not have sufficient evidence to prove trespassing, this is also a misdemeanor with jail time. >When asked to explain the grounds for arresting a working journalist, Erickson told the Grand Forks Herald that he did not, in fact, consider Goodman a journalist. “She’s a protester, basically,” Erickson told the newspaper. “Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions.” And in The Bismarck Tribune he later added, “I think she put together a piece to influence the world on her agenda, basically. That’s fine, but it doesn’t immunize her from the laws of her state.” This is the important point of the article, the prosecutor says they do not consider Goodman a journalist because the 20 year journalism veteran doesn't adequately represent the point of view of their client.
- code_sardaukar 10y ago
  Another possibility is that the prosecutor didn't consider it relevant to the case whether Goodman was a journalist or not, but chose to answer the question anyway. E.g. the quote "I think she put together a piece to influence the world on her agenda, basically. That’s fine, but it doesn’t immunize her from the laws of her state" in no way implies that her actions would have been legal if she were a journalist. It is the article that asserts that "arresting a working journalist" requires a special explanation.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
abalone 10y ago
This is inaccurate. She is charged with participating in a riot, not trespass. And it is explicitly because of the content of her report: "She’s a protester, basically," Erickson told the newspaper. "Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions."
sitkack 10y ago
Programmer judicial absolutism. I read the Arizona case, that reporter was charged with trespass for ringing a cops front door bell. A cop under investigation for murder of a woman. The public absolutely has a right to know, and knowing involves Goodman following the protestors onto that land.
formula1 10y ago
I find this fact quite fascinating. The pipeline certainly was controversial however if it wasnt for illegal activity, it probably wouldnt have gotten nearly as much exposure. Yes, most agree with the protesters. I also imagine that most people dont want to have their meats pumped up with hormones. Does that give the citizens grounds to break into farms and destroy/steal property? To protest offshore exploitation, is tresspassing onto private cargoboats reasonable? Id like to know if theres a form of successful activism that doesnt have to devolve into criminal activity, even if minor. From what I gather, usually companies/parties complicit in the problem activities can simply ignore protests.

by eddieh 10y ago

swsieber 10y ago

So, there was an update to the article, she was charged with inciting a riot, not trespassing, quote: It should be noted that the original charge leveled against Goodman was not riot but criminal trespass, also a misdemeanor. However, just days days before Goodman was set to appear in court, the prosecutor, Ladd Erickson, switched up the charges because, he admitted in an email to Goodman’s lawyer, Tom Dickson, there were “legal issues with proving the notice of trespassing requirements in the statute.”

sitkack 10y ago
"We are going to charge you with something, we just haven't figured out which law yet..."
- throwaway98237 10y ago
  Yep. And this is the take-away. We shouldn't ask that the burden-of-proof the State must meet be something like: "Did the State eventually have a good legal argument?" We should require that the State be using its (considerable) resources to achieve the best "public good". It is my opinion that throwing charges until they stick at a journalist (the only constitutionally protected profession) in order to bully them from doing their job when it is not in the interest of the State, is not in the best interest of the public. That is not creating a public good.
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    Publishing and speaking are constitutionally protected acts. The other things journalists may decide to do (e.g., trespassing to gather evidence or threatening others) are no more protected than for any other citizen.

Mithaldu 10y ago

According to the article they are charging her with being a rioter (while also claiming she is not a journalist), not with trespass, and this specifically because of “legal issues with proving the notice of trespassing requirements in the statute.”

photogrammetry 10y ago

You have unfortunately missed the point. If she allows herself to be put in jail, even for a "paltry 30 days" as you claim, it sets a dangerous precedent and gives the government and bureaucracy the power to determine what journalism is "balanced" and what journalism is unacceptable. This conflicts directly with our First Amendment, which grants the people freedom of the press. It is not reasonable to give up and serve 30 days in jail for a false crime you have been charged with unconstitutionally. You seem so nonchalant about the potential jailtime, since it's "so small." Have you ever heard this poem? "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." It does not matter at what scale this constitutional abuse occurs. That it is happening at all should be horrifying to you; have you seen what happens to government dissidents and journalists in 'civilized' countries like Russia and China?

eddieh 10y ago
I don't think I'm missing the point. You can't invoke a constitutional right for otherwise breaking the law. EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murderer would just need to say the murder was their performance art.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- photogrammetry 10y ago
  Have you read a single Supreme Court decision? Your entire comment is factually wrong.
- ebbv 10y ago
  Yes you absolutely can. That's the point of freedom of the press being part of the First Amendment. Laws that would prevent the press from fulfilling its constitutional role lose out to the first amendment. Journalists are allowed to protect their sources, where the rest of us might be compelled in a court to testify. It doesn't give them blanket immunity from all laws, but it does provide them certain protections. This is a clear case where the state is overreaching. EDIT: > EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murder would just need to say the murder was their performance art. No. That is not remotely true. You're being ridiculous.

monocasa 10y ago

They dropped the trespassing charges. She's now being charged with rioting. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/15/breaking_nd_prosecutor_seeks_riot_charges http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/15/breaking_nd_prosecuto...

alexbeloi 10y ago

The charges have been changed from criminal trespass to riot, they seemingly did not have sufficient evidence to prove trespassing, this is also a misdemeanor with jail time. >When asked to explain the grounds for arresting a working journalist, Erickson told the Grand Forks Herald that he did not, in fact, consider Goodman a journalist. “She’s a protester, basically,” Erickson told the newspaper. “Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions.” And in The Bismarck Tribune he later added, “I think she put together a piece to influence the world on her agenda, basically. That’s fine, but it doesn’t immunize her from the laws of her state.” This is the important point of the article, the prosecutor says they do not consider Goodman a journalist because the 20 year journalism veteran doesn't adequately represent the point of view of their client.

code_sardaukar 10y ago
Another possibility is that the prosecutor didn't consider it relevant to the case whether Goodman was a journalist or not, but chose to answer the question anyway. E.g. the quote "I think she put together a piece to influence the world on her agenda, basically. That’s fine, but it doesn’t immunize her from the laws of her state" in no way implies that her actions would have been legal if she were a journalist. It is the article that asserts that "arresting a working journalist" requires a special explanation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

abalone 10y ago

This is inaccurate. She is charged with participating in a riot, not trespass. And it is explicitly because of the content of her report: "She’s a protester, basically," Erickson told the newspaper. "Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions."

sitkack 10y ago

Programmer judicial absolutism. I read the Arizona case, that reporter was charged with trespass for ringing a cops front door bell. A cop under investigation for murder of a woman. The public absolutely has a right to know, and knowing involves Goodman following the protestors onto that land.

formula1 10y ago

I find this fact quite fascinating. The pipeline certainly was controversial however if it wasnt for illegal activity, it probably wouldnt have gotten nearly as much exposure. Yes, most agree with the protesters. I also imagine that most people dont want to have their meats pumped up with hormones. Does that give the citizens grounds to break into farms and destroy/steal property? To protest offshore exploitation, is tresspassing onto private cargoboats reasonable? Id like to know if theres a form of successful activism that doesnt have to devolve into criminal activity, even if minor. From what I gather, usually companies/parties complicit in the problem activities can simply ignore protests.