5 ms·

He is thought to be the only journalist ever to have been charged both civilly and criminally for reporting on a matter of public interest in this country. It

by nkurz 9y ago

He is thought to be the only journalist ever to have been charged both civilly and criminally for reporting on a matter of public interest in this country. It seems misleading to say that has been been charged for reporting, rather than to say that he has been charged while reporting. I haven't read the charges, but I presume the issue is lack of perceived immunity rather than separate laws against reporting. But this does raise the question, are there crimes that journalists frequently commit for which they are not charged? The implication is that prosecution is rare because of immunity, but a simpler explanation would be that prosecution is rare because journalists are generally law abiding.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
> are there crimes that journalists frequently commit for which they are not charged? I suspect for trivial ones like this (tresspass), it is pretty common. This guy was tresspassing in the wake news-worthy trespassers. A rationally self-interested owner might want to let the journalist off to avoid bad press. That said, the other journalists remained at the gate. So this guy was going beyond the informal norms around there. Also it says: Mr. Brake embedded himself with a largely Indigenous group of protesters (which he refers to as “land protectors”) while they occupied workers’ accommodations. He live streamed their protest for several days. So maybe he was seen as one of the protesters rather than a journalist covering them. Also does he cover a multi-day tresspass? If so, it is clearer that he should have sought permission from the owners before going in to film; at least after the initial rush.
- dmix 9y ago
  There was also property damage with the gate being broken, but I doubt that applies. There was also a specific injunction against the protest, not just trespassing, and it was multiday trespassing, not just entering a private propety to film something of interest and then leaving. Was it necessary for him to be there integrated as one of them for the whole disruption to get the story? Im curious what line youd have to cross to be a protestor, not just a reporter.
  - ashelmire 9y ago
    Embedded reporting is pretty common, including in situations where merely being there is illegal.
- daturkel 9y ago
  Their reporting is less likely to be seen as a public good, but I imagine that paparazzi are charged for trespass and/or assault with some frequency. Just as not all trespass is a like, not all reporting is either. I think a judge would be more sympathetic to trespass that reveals, say, prison corruption than a celebrity affair.
HenryBemis 9y ago
He trespassed. This is not a Good Samaritan case where he trespassed to save a drowning child! He should be processed by the system, and let the court of law judge him. It's Canada we're talking about, he will have a fair trial, it's not Turkey where he would have already been imprisoned/tortured/"suicide-ed".
- pstuart 9y ago
  He "trespassed" to cover the actions of the actual trespassers. If he had been reporting negatively about the trespassers and informing on them I'm sure he wouldn't have been charged.
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  Sorry, I'm a Canadian (of partial Turkish decent, funnily) I don't want our society / police touching journalists that cover protests or other incidents of civil disobedience or conflict. Journalists stop the powerful from manipulating history and history will be manipulated if they're not allowed to access sit-ins, protests, etc. If they're the only ones trespassing, sure, arrest them. But otherwise let's keep the courts for the actual criminals.
  - cabaalis 9y ago
    I'm a developer, it's still illegal for me to use holes found by other developers. He trespassed on private property, his being called a "journalist" doesn't much change that.
    - mattigames 9y ago
      There are many cases where sticking around someone (e.g. a civil activist like MLK) was illegal enough for having a criminal charge over you; but journalist get immunity -to a degree, explicit or implicit- for being so; so yeah I think your analogy here misses the point.
      - djrogers 9y ago
creep 9y ago
This is a good point. And as another user pointed out, perhaps if he was there filming for days he should have requested permission from the landowners to do so. This story was a bit concerning at first, given what the phrasing implies, but if the above case is true (that he did not request permission, and that journalists don't have legal immunity in that situation) I think the journalist could have taken steps to ensure legality and cover his story.
- jandrese 9y ago
  I can't imagine the landowner would be all that enthusiastic about allowing a broadcaster direct access to the people who are protesting him. It would be pretty easy to say no "for safety reasons".
- kortex 9y ago
  "Hey Mr Factory Farm, mind if I stay with these protesters trying to uncover abuses and film their findings? Please and thanks!"
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by nkurz 9y ago

adrianratnapala 9y ago

> are there crimes that journalists frequently commit for which they are not charged? I suspect for trivial ones like this (tresspass), it is pretty common. This guy was tresspassing in the wake news-worthy trespassers. A rationally self-interested owner might want to let the journalist off to avoid bad press. That said, the other journalists remained at the gate. So this guy was going beyond the informal norms around there. Also it says: Mr. Brake embedded himself with a largely Indigenous group of protesters (which he refers to as “land protectors”) while they occupied workers’ accommodations. He live streamed their protest for several days. So maybe he was seen as one of the protesters rather than a journalist covering them. Also does he cover a multi-day tresspass? If so, it is clearer that he should have sought permission from the owners before going in to film; at least after the initial rush.

dmix 9y ago
There was also property damage with the gate being broken, but I doubt that applies. There was also a specific injunction against the protest, not just trespassing, and it was multiday trespassing, not just entering a private propety to film something of interest and then leaving. Was it necessary for him to be there integrated as one of them for the whole disruption to get the story? Im curious what line youd have to cross to be a protestor, not just a reporter.
- ashelmire 9y ago
  Embedded reporting is pretty common, including in situations where merely being there is illegal.
daturkel 9y ago
Their reporting is less likely to be seen as a public good, but I imagine that paparazzi are charged for trespass and/or assault with some frequency. Just as not all trespass is a like, not all reporting is either. I think a judge would be more sympathetic to trespass that reveals, say, prison corruption than a celebrity affair.

HenryBemis 9y ago

He trespassed. This is not a Good Samaritan case where he trespassed to save a drowning child! He should be processed by the system, and let the court of law judge him. It's Canada we're talking about, he will have a fair trial, it's not Turkey where he would have already been imprisoned/tortured/"suicide-ed".

pstuart 9y ago
He "trespassed" to cover the actions of the actual trespassers. If he had been reporting negatively about the trespassers and informing on them I'm sure he wouldn't have been charged.
3pt14159 9y ago
Sorry, I'm a Canadian (of partial Turkish decent, funnily) I don't want our society / police touching journalists that cover protests or other incidents of civil disobedience or conflict. Journalists stop the powerful from manipulating history and history will be manipulated if they're not allowed to access sit-ins, protests, etc. If they're the only ones trespassing, sure, arrest them. But otherwise let's keep the courts for the actual criminals.
- cabaalis 9y ago
  I'm a developer, it's still illegal for me to use holes found by other developers. He trespassed on private property, his being called a "journalist" doesn't much change that.
  - mattigames 9y ago
    There are many cases where sticking around someone (e.g. a civil activist like MLK) was illegal enough for having a criminal charge over you; but journalist get immunity -to a degree, explicit or implicit- for being so; so yeah I think your analogy here misses the point.
    - djrogers 9y ago

creep 9y ago

This is a good point. And as another user pointed out, perhaps if he was there filming for days he should have requested permission from the landowners to do so. This story was a bit concerning at first, given what the phrasing implies, but if the above case is true (that he did not request permission, and that journalists don't have legal immunity in that situation) I think the journalist could have taken steps to ensure legality and cover his story.

jandrese 9y ago
I can't imagine the landowner would be all that enthusiastic about allowing a broadcaster direct access to the people who are protesting him. It would be pretty easy to say no "for safety reasons".
kortex 9y ago
"Hey Mr Factory Farm, mind if I stay with these protesters trying to uncover abuses and film their findings? Please and thanks!"

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]