5 ms·
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 again
by 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 agoYep. 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 agoPublishing 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.