Why Is North Dakota Arresting Journalists For Doing Journalism?

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Two years ago, we wrote about the ridiculousness of police arresting reporters for reporting in Ferguson, Missouri, even though courts had told police to knock it off. Even more ridiculous is that those reporters were eventually charged, leading to a ridiculous settlement earlier this year.

And yet... arresting journalists for doing journalism continues to be a thing. As you probably know, there have been a bunch of protests in North Dakota lately concerning the Dakota Access Pipeline. Back in September, after covering the protests and having some of her videos of an attack on the protestors go viral, famed Democracy Now reporter Amy Goodman found out an arrest warrant had been issued for her. It's pretty clear that this arrest warrant was solely because of the coverage reflecting poorly on officials.

On Thursday, Goodman said that she'll surrender to authorities next week. As Democracy Now points out, the criminal complaint against her is so transparently unconstitutional and so transparently about intimidating reporters, that it actually notes that "Amy Goodman can be seen on the video identifying herself and interviewing protesters about their involvement in the protest." Right. That's called journalism. Goodman was basically arrested for doing journalism that the powers-that-be dislike.

Organizations that fight for free speech for journalists are condemning all of this. The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that this is "a transparent attempt to intimidate reporters from covering protests of significant public interest" while the Freedom of the Press Foundation is demanding that North Dakota drop the charges.

And they may want to seriously consider dropping the charges and walking away. After all, Goodman was also arrested for covering protests back in 2008, and that eventually ended with the police and local governments having to pay her $100,000 for violating her civil rights.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 10:55am

    You embarrassed the government. You must pay for that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 2:48pm

      Re:

      It may have something to do with the gov, but it also has to do with her breaking the law to get her story. Being a reporter doesnt mean she can do anything she wants for a story and then just walk away. The original group of protesters are nearly gone now with only agitators left who are mostly from out of state.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2016 @ 4:53am

        Re: Re:

        "breaking the law "

        And what law was that, exactly?
        You seem quite convinced, certainly you know what the offense was - right?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 8:52pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 14th, 2016 @ 10:55am

      More like you embarrassed us so we must do something stupid enough to make us give you money for the service.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 11:07am

    This will continue

    This types of unconstitutional actions will continue until the enforcement officers performing them have to pay out of their pocket for it. As long as they can claim immunity, or they thought the law allowed them to do it, etc... they have no incentive to stop.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bob, 14 Oct 2016 @ 12:05pm

      Re: This will continue

      Is this action by the officers or action by the state attorneys? Cops don't create arrest warrants, I don't think. If this is action by the SAG maybe she'll walk away with more than $100K this time.
      as she should, considering it's a second offense. ;-)

      -B

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Machin Shin (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 12:29pm

      Re: This will continue

      Well I think big issue is that the "punishment" for them braking the law is that tax payers get to pay the fine. Hard to convince police that they need to behave if you punish the tax payers instead on the police.

      If every time I got caught speeding I would get a ticket saying someone else had to pay the fine, I would drive 100 mph everywhere I go.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 14 Oct 2016 @ 1:06pm

        Re: Re: This will continue

        Well I think big issue is that the "punishment" for them braking the law is that tax payers get to pay the fine. Hard to convince police that they need to behave if you punish the tax payers instead on the police.

        So? With average or higher intelligence you are not eligible as a patrol officer, and they get trained by good ole boys. And then you want to dock their pay for doing what they don't know better?

        I do think that the approach of letting the tax payer pay is not the worst one. But the local tax payers, and send them itemized bills. And maybe they will then fscking stop electing politicians into office who promise the most stupid law&order campaigns. Oh, and if a local tax payer has to default on his police payments, forward the bills to the city officials.

        Because it is hard to blame morons for doing what they are taught to do. You have to hit someone in the pocket, hard, who actually is accountable for the structures leading to the systematic misuse of police as a local terror cell.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Quiet Lurcker, 14 Oct 2016 @ 3:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: This will continue

          So you're saying in part, "don't blame the uniforms, blame the ones above them, because the uniformed personnel are stupid, and selected on that basis"?

          That reminds me of the old - and lame, let's not forget lame - joke about the man who complained to his doctor that his arm hurt when he moved it a certain way. The doctor's advice was basically, "so don't do that".

          Well, maybe the police supervisors need to follow that advice when selecting new uniformed personnel, and we the voters need to do much the same thing with our elected officials.

          Problem is, we generally don't elect judges. There are states where that does happen, and I'm ambivalent about whether it's a good thing or not. Same thing for prosecutors. I suspect some are elected, some appointed; never bothered to look that up. So, how to get rid of the judge who signed the warrant if (s)he wasn't elected. Or the appointed prosecutor who made application for the warrant to begin with? We can maybe toss the politico who appointed the judge, but that doesn't remove the judge.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 1:21pm

      Re: This will continue

      So this is a pretty clear abuse of power and needs to be fought BUT lets fight the right fight.

      Arrest warrants are not issued by the police, they have to be approved by a judge and are usually requested by a prosecutor. This sounds more like local politicians going after her than the police.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2016 @ 12:16pm

      Re: This will continue

      Exactly.

      And in North Dakota, officials, that are supposed to represent the people are actually claiming 'overtime' dealing with this arrest warrant situation.

      A few prominent government bodies are claiming this overtime at a varying amount from 3 to 6x normal hourly salary rates.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2016 @ 1:03pm

      Re: This will continue

      Exactly - its time that the individual cop is liable for their deployable actions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 11:09am

    amy goodman?

    meh...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 14 Oct 2016 @ 11:54am

      Re:

      Lemme guess... An Ann Coulter fan?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re:

        nope.

        amy goodman is just a partisan hack. like an coulter.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Thad, 14 Oct 2016 @ 12:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And if the police tried to arrest Ann Coulter for reporting a story they didn't like, that would be outrageous too.

          You don't have to like a person to support their First Amendment rights. If the First Amendment only applied to people we like, there'd be no need for a First Amendment at all.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 12:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            like has nothing to do with it. that they use journalism as an excuse to further their own ends is.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              I.T. Guy, 14 Oct 2016 @ 12:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "further their own ends"
              Which is... what?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Padpaw (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 11:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                citizens have no rights if they make those in charge look bad

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Mary-Lee, 16 Oct 2016 @ 4:04pm

                Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The "ends" is that before Amy Goodman's report most of the country was unaware of this protest. As a result of Amy Goodman's reporting, people who listen to her program became aware as well as literally millions on Facebook and other social media. No one is telling the people what to think. They can come to their own conclusions. But they need to know this is happening, that people are actually stopping a pipeline from being put in place, particularly after the pipeline leaks in Arkansas, Wyoming, California, Missouri, Yellowstone Park, and even in another area of North Dakota.
                I knew about the protests because I know one of the men who is protesting. Certainly not everyone knows someone. We rely on the media to tell us what is going on in the nation. When the mainstream media fails, we rely on Amy Goodman, and she never fails.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Machin Shin (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 1:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "that they use journalism as an excuse to further their own ends is."

              Point is that First Amendment protects speech, period, full stop. There is no "unless your speaking to further your own ends". Your motives have NOTHING to do with the protection offered. Your allowed to say anything you want for any reason you want, so long as you are doing something in the very narrow list of exceptions. (Those being defamation and yelling fire etc.)

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Kal Zekdor (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 4:01pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Even that "yelling fire" thing isn't really the case. The original court ruling about that was later overturned.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Groaker (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 5:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Not trying to be irritating, but would you have a reference for that? I have heard the "yelling fire" thing so often that I would really like to put down anyone who says it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Thad, 14 Oct 2016 @ 6:00pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I suspect he's referring to this, via Popehat:

                    Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough

                    Basically, "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" was an analogy used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to uphold Charles Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act. Schenck's crime was criticizing the draft during World War I.

                    Subsequent courts have disagreed pretty strongly with this interpretation, and what Shenck was convicted for would certainly be considered protected speech today.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2016 @ 7:18pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Just google "why is it illegal to yell fire". You will learn more than you ever wanted.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Thad, 14 Oct 2016 @ 5:54pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  ...you know there wasn't actually a case where someone was tried for yelling "fire" in a theater, right?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2016 @ 11:45am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    ...you know there wasn't actually a case where someone was tried for yelling "fire" in a theater, right?

                    And the fact that so many people believe it is a testament to the power of propaganda to make people believe in things that aren't true.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Thad, 17 Oct 2016 @ 10:00am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Well, I mean, it's true as far as it goes. If somebody did yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and there was no fire, and the person knew there was no fire, and it resulted in people being injured, then yes, this would absolutely be a First Amendment exception.

                      The problem isn't in the example itself, it's in how it's used, and how it's been used since the very beginning. Just because yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is unprotected speech doesn't mean that protesting the draft is unprotected speech. All it means is that (1) some speech is unprotected, and (2) specifically, speech that is intentionally designed to cause immediate physical harm is unprotected.

                      And the latter is a very narrow category.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 6:39pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Your motives have NOTHING to do with the protection offered.

                maybe thats the problem

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Thad, 14 Oct 2016 @ 5:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              like has nothing to do with it. that they use journalism as an excuse to further their own ends is.


              Okay then. Let me rephrase:

              You don't have to like a person's ends to support their First Amendment rights. If the First Amendment only applied to ends we like, there'd be no need for a First Amendment at all.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 5:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You don't have to like a person to support their First Amendment rights. If the First Amendment only applied to people we like, there'd be no need for a First Amendment at all.

            This, 1000 times over.

            Why is it so difficult for people to get this simple point?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Padpaw (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 11:15pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              same reason why we have people in positions of power that routinely abuse those same rights people are supposed to have.

              They think it only applies by their definitions. "You are wrong because I know I am right"

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2016 @ 11:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Why is it so difficult for people to get this simple point?

              Because they simply don't *want* to.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Regret, 14 Oct 2016 @ 12:07pm

    Do reporters have a right to trespass?

    https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2009/trespa ssing-get-story

    Whether or not you support the protesters cause or the government's action, there seems to be a valid claim that reporters don't necessarily get to trespass when they want to cover a story. Yeah, maybe the government is more eager to prosecute if they would like to shut the reporter up, but isn't risk of criminal trespass something a reporter covering a protest might expect? Doesn't seem black and white to me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 12:33pm

    I hope they don't settle. I hope they take this all the way to the top.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    annonymouse, 14 Oct 2016 @ 1:09pm

    I don't see no banana

    Can anyone see if we can get an arrest warrant for these Barons and their enforcers in maybe say west Texas?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 1:25pm

    There is no qualification for being a journalist, why should they get more protection than any other citizen?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2016 @ 5:25am

      Re:

      Because governments always abuse journalists who dare to write anything negative about them. Without a free and independent press, we would have the totalitarian farce of a democracy that we enjoy today.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ruby, 16 Oct 2016 @ 6:06am

      Re:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

      I just...that's......WHAT???

      How can you not be able to figure out something so basic?!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2016 @ 7:10am

        Re: Re:

        You have a lot to learn about constitutional law.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2016 @ 9:14am

        Re: Re:

        When the constitutions was written the press referred to the printing press, and freedom of the press was a restriction that prevented any form of censorship over any printed matter.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Thad, 17 Oct 2016 @ 9:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, and the right to keep and bear arms referred to 18th-century weaponry. Is this really a slippery slope you want to go down, or can we acknowledge that the Constitution was intended to allow for the existence of new technologies?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    aeortiz (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 1:52pm

    Typo in title

    Hello, your friendly neighborhood proofreader/nazi here,

    Journailsm vs Journalism.

    My fingers type chords all the time, (I "paly" the piano) and my dyslexia does the rest.

    :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Mayor, 14 Oct 2016 @ 2:08pm

    FOLLOW THE BLACK MONEY

    It could be the "Right's" attempt to further interfer with coverage of Anti Pipeline challenges! The "Right" is tied to "Oil interests"!... these "interests" are in trouble these days!... and these "interests" desire to stem the tide of Sustainable Energy progression (i.e., Renewable Energy progression!)!
    .
    Please!... no emails!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 2:45pm

    I live near this

    Whats happening is nothing like what the media is showing. Damage and destruction to property, vandalism, trespassing on private land, etc... This report has a right to get a story, but it doesnt mean she can commit the same crimes to get it. Dont just jump on the bandwagon of how bad everyone else is, this protest stopped being about the pipeline a long time ago. Even the original head of it is trying to get some distance from what the people there now are doing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      art guerrilla (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 5:24pm

      Re: I live near this

      hey looky here ! ! !
      i bet this is one of them gummint disinfo botz...
      they can have one quisling control hundreds of sockpuppet propaganda accounts...
      pretty neat, huh, gang ? ? ?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 11:13pm

      Re: I live near this

      Is there any proof she partook in such illegal acts? or is your reasoning because some people did it they must all have done it?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Mary-Lee, 16 Oct 2016 @ 4:11pm

      Reply to: I live near this

      The protectors are camped on private land WITH THE OWNER'S PERMISSION. They are protesting on land that belongs either to the Army Corps of Engineers or the energy companies that are building the pipeline. They do not destroy or damage land belonging to private citizens. In fact, they do not destroy of damage ANY land. Their goal is to preserve the land as it is. Stop lying! Coward, indeed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 2:50pm

    i may have a solution to a LOT of politician problems....

    I propose that to hold a public office (mayor, governor, legislator), you NEED to pass a High School Equivalency test in Social Sudies/US Civics every 6 months, because politicians have the memory of a goldfish apparently. These are BASIC CIVICS lessons folks, and our public officials are failing at that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      John Mayor, 14 Oct 2016 @ 11:37pm

      Re: i may have a solution to a LOT of politician problems....

      Better still, would be to require Faculties of Education worldwide to CERTIFY teachers in the Behavioral Sciences (i.e., INTRApersonal and INTERpersonal Intelligence... the three "I_s"!) in order to be come a teacher!... and thereby, to both instruct and assess (from K to post-grad!) the Behavioral Development of ALL STUDENTS (and regardless of A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L "other" academic pursuits a student may have!)! In other words, you don't get to become a teacher, unless you are equipped in the Behavioral Sciences! And!... as a student!... you don't get to proceed IN ANY OTHER FIELD unless you are equipped with the prequalifications of INTRApersonal and INTERpersonal Intelligence!
      .
      Further!... the W-H-O-L-E O-F E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N should be brought within the framework of the MEDICAL MODEL (i.e., a MACRO and MICRO/ LOCAL Public Health Model, and a MACRO and MICRO/ LOCAL Environmental Health Model!)! And inasmuch, as there is NO GREATER FIELD through which A-L-L O-T-H-E-R F-I-E-L-D-S on planet earth can, and should be vetted, than Health!
      .
      Lastly, in order to "kickstart" the necessary revamping of our pedagogies, would be to MANDATE that Faculties of Education Certify teachers in four essential prequalifications: Applied and Theoretical Teaching (what the teacher is all about!... and regardless of what subjects are being taught!), and Applied and Theoretical Learning (what the student is all about!... and regardless of what subjects students are learning!)! In MANDATING these FOUR PILLARS through our Faculties of Educations, teachers would be equipped with the BARE ESSENTIALS necessary, to facilitate proper teaching, and learning! But, beyond this, MANDATING the Behavioral Sciences through our Faculties of Education, would then bring teachers' skill sets far beyond mere teaching and learning!... and into to the realm of "Behavioral Health"! And once our Pedagogies begin to entertain Behavioral Health, it's then a "stone's throw away" to a C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E-L-Y H-E-A-L-T-H I-N-T-E-G-R-A-T-E-D E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N-A-L M-O-D-E-L!... and therewith, dumping the "legacy" of our F-A-I-L-E-D "Educational Systems"!
      .
      To sum up... and to be frank!... NO advanced civilization anywhere within our universe, would base their educational systems... and society!... on anything less, than a T-O-T-A-L C-O-M-M-I-T-M-E-N-T T-O A-N I-N-T-E-G-R-A-T-E-D H-E-A-L-T-H M-O-D-E-L! And thereby, leaving only TWO CLASSES of citizens:... those in need of "healing", and those able to heal! And!... NO MATTER WHAT OTHER "OCCUPATION" A CITIZEN MAY POSSESS... W-H-A-T-S-O-E-V-E-R!... H-E-A-L-T-H WOULD BE AT THE CENTER OF IT, OR, IT WOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM SOCIETY (which should bring to mind the ages old quote: "You're either part of the problem, or you're part of the solution"!... and... a quote attributed to Christ: "Let your communication be yea, or nay!...")
      .
      Please!... no emails!
      .
      P.S.: for an overview of how a revamped Pedagogy would look, secure an "interlibrary loan" of the work, The Death of Psychiatry, by Dr. Edwin Fuller Torrey! And on an overview of a GLOBAL HEALTH RESTRUCTURING of our many "social infrastructural components", I would suggest an online review of our global health care bodies (such as the World Health Organization, and the World Health Assembly!... and etc.!), and organizations which are pursuing "complex systems research (e.g., the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis!... and etc.!... and see also, the Yearbook of International Organizations, from the Union of International Associations!)"!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 3:22pm

    Perhaps it should be a law that the first time it happens you get the 100,000 settlement and everytime some idiot tries to do the same thing just add a 0.

    The law is clear and until the punishments really hurt they will continue. Those involved in signing off on this case would be hard pressed to explain giving away 1,000,000 of public funds. Imagine the next time when its 10,000,000. We need to hold our leaders responsible & stop allowing them to hide behind a shield when they ignore the law & should be punished.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2016 @ 5:59pm

    Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 14 Oct 2016 @ 10:46pm

    Compensation

    This time, it should be a million dollars, not a measly 100 grand!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2016 @ 12:03pm

      Re: Compensation

      Yeah, $100,00 is pocket change for the government. It should have been at least $1,000,000. Even though Goodman went through the "system", the remedy so was so inadequate that it did not discourage the same thing from happening again.

      So what do you do if the remedy available in court is inadequate? I know what the founders of the United States did.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2016 @ 12:18pm

        Re: Re: Compensation

        Of course, that was back when the King/government made the mistake letting the people fully arm themselves. I've often wondered if that is at least partly why the British government nowadays is so against armed civilian subjects.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 15 Oct 2016 @ 4:13pm

        "Someone else is paying my fine? Cool, I promise I'll absolutely not do that again then."

        $100,000 would be plenty if it were applied properly. Hit the wallets of those involved directly, don't shift it off to the general public or city/state budget, make those that committed the action that was found bad enough to warrant a fine personally pay, and do that in every such case.

        Police abuse their authority so badly that they get slapped down by a court and a monetary award is handed out? Fired immediately if the offense was bad enough(and if a judge is willing to crack down on a cop this is pretty much guaranteed, given how insanely high a bar that is) and make the officers and their supervisors personally liable for the amount.

        Politician or other 'public servant' use their position for personal gain? Removed from office/job immediately, and assuming the abuse of authority wasn't seriously over the top make them pay back the court levied fine before they can run for office again or attempt to be employed by the government/city/state again, rather than just dumping the fine on the public and leaving the guilty party off the hook.

        Fines would work if they were aimed properly, as it stands they just result in the public being hosed over twice, the first time from the original abuse of power/authority and then being forced to foot the bill from it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon-E-Mouse-Owl, 15 Oct 2016 @ 11:29pm

    Trespassing

    1. The land is owned by the Native Americans.
    2. They wanted her there.
    3. Just because you have an easement doesn't mean it's *yours* - the pipeline company owns only the equipment and hardware, not the land. That's why it's called an easement and not a transfer of land ownership.

    Amy Goodman wasn't trespassing. It's not the pipeline company's land.

    I hope she gets a good chunk of money. Stupid should hurt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Carl (profile), 16 Oct 2016 @ 6:00am

    Amy Goodwin

    "they use journalism as an excuse to further their own ends"

    Just like your comment? It's called the free press.

    You, my friend, exhibit a microcosm of a dangerous trend in this nation -- the same trend that's polling 40% for Donald Trump's brand of demagogic fascism, really little different than Italy 1925-45. It's a good thing we're not in a depression (yet). Trump would probably win.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 18 Oct 2016 @ 6:05am

      Re: Amy Goodwin

      When he takes the brakes off the banksters and drops taxes on the rich, you will be there, my friend.

      And you can bet your rear end he will blame {boogeyman}.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2016 @ 9:49pm

      Re: Amy Goodwin

      You, my friend, exhibit a microcosm of a dangerous trend in this nation

      carl please skip the scare and doom. it sounds like those gunners that say the gov is going turn into 1984 if you dont fully agree that they dont need an m14 ebr.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2016 @ 2:02pm

        Re: Re: Amy Goodwin

        US government HAS turned into 1984.

        Except with technology to spy on citizens that George Orwell could only dream of giving to Big Brother.

        If Orwell wrote 1984 50 years ago, using todays illegal spying and assassinations of 'US citizens the government doesn't like', it'd be laughed at as silly and extremely unrealistic.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Carl (profile), 18 Oct 2016 @ 3:06pm

    Wendy, I think you misunderstood my comment. My bad, should have communicated more clearly. In bad times, demagogues get elected (Italy, Germany, Spain, etc.). This DA who arrested Amy Goodwin is a microcosm of fascism, that abuse of power, the same kind of fascism espoused by Trump and others of his ilk.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Carl (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 7:56am

    Take your head out of the sand (or whatever dank cavernous place it currently resides). If you haven't noticed, around 40% of voters behind Trump. If that isn't a harbinger of cultural and social decline worthy of the phrase "dangerous trend" then you're simply not paying attention.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2016 @ 1:59pm

    Amy needs to due the local authorities, but this time not settle for $100,000.

    I'd say the damages should be 100million+. Hit the authorities with such a HUGE possible bill that they'll back the fuck off other journalists that they've ordered beaten, restrained, illegally arrested, families threatened with assault etc.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.