Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts

Monday, October 17, 2016

North Dakota gives up attempt to charge journalist who filmed pipeline protest

 A Judge that believes in reason and a prosecutor who doesn't.
by Joe Mullin
Ars Technica / 2016-10-17 19:04
Amy-Goodman.north-dakota.jpg
Amy Goodman stands with her lawyer, Tom Dickson, outside the Morton County Courthouse.
reader comments 14
Share this story
A North Dakota prosecutor's controversial case against journalist Amy Goodman is over.
On Friday, North Dakota prosecutor Ladd Erickson drew national criticism from press freedom groups when he filed charges claiming that Goodman had participated in a riot when she filmed Native Americans protestors clashing with police and guards in September. The Native Americans were protesting the beginning of construction work on the Dakota Access Pipeline.
District Judge John Grinsteiner dismissed Erickson's charges against Goodman. The charges Erickson brought Friday were a substitute for his earlier criminal trespassing charge against Goodman, which he withdrew.
"This is a complete vindication of my right as a journalist to cover the attack on the protesters and of the public's right to know what is happening with the Dakota Access pipeline," said Goodman. "We will continue to report on this epic struggle of Native Americans and their non-Native allies taking on the fossil fuel industry and an increasingly militarized police in this time when climate change threatens the planet."
Goodman, the longtime host of the Democracy Now! television and radio show, shot video of a Sept. 3 protest that went viral and was viewed millions of times on Facebook and numerous TV networks. The footage showed guards using dogs and pepper stray against protesters on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. On Sept. 8, the State of North Dakota issued a warrant for Goodman's arrest.
Erickson, the prosecutor, asserted that Goodman shouldn't be treated as a journalist because she was too sympathetic to the protesters' point of view.
"She's a protester, basically," said Erickson, in statements published by Rolling Stone. "Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions."
Goodman's report neither mentioned trespassing nor described alleged assaults on guards, Erickson added in statements made to The Bismarck Tribune.
The rioting charge carried a potential punishment of 30 days in prison and a $2,500 fine.
Background about the fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline can be found in a story by Los Angeles Times reporter Michael Hiltzik published earlier today. Standing Rock Sioux tribal leaders say the $3.8 billion, 1,200 mile pipeline goes through their ancestral lands, and they are concerned that a pipeline break could harm their water supply.
Pipeline opponents have been fighting in court for years, but have consistently lost. However, in September the Department of Justice, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Interior Department announced that work would be halted "until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions."
--
Shared via Inoreader


Sent from my iPad

Prosecutors Changing Charges Against Reporter To 'Rioting' Because Her Coverage Was Sympathetic To Protestors


by Mike Masnick
Techdirt. / 2016-10-17 09:19
On Friday, we wrote about the ridiculous arrest warrant for reporter Amy Goodman for reporting on the protests over the North Dakota oil pipeline. At the time, the charges against Goodman were apparently for trespassing, but late on Friday, the state attorney alerted Goodman's lawyer that they were now actually trying to charge her with rioting. Say what?
"I came back to North Dakota to fight a trespass charge. They saw that they could never make that charge stick, so now they want to charge me with rioting, " said Goodman. "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."
Apparently, the State's Attorney, Ladd Erickson, figured out enough about the law to realize that trespassing charges would never stick because there needs to be notice before it's trespassing, and no notice was presented. But Erickson is still really, really confused about how the First Amendment works. He told a local newspaper that Goodman's reporting was illegal because it was sympathetic to the protestors. Really.
"She's a protester, basically. Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions," said Erickson
That's uh, not how the First Amendment works. And it will be fascinating to see Erickson try to now justify the "riot" claims when the complaint itself admits that Goodman was interviewing protestors. Apparently the judge will decide later today if the riot charges will stand. One hopes that he understands the First Amendment more than the states attorney.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
--
Shared via Inoreader


Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Today in History: Socialist Eugene Debs Sentenced to Prison for Giving Anti-War Speech

Reason.com Full Feed Today in History: Socialist Eugene Debs Sentenced to Prison for Giving Anti-War Speech
On this day in 1918 federal authorities sentenced the socialist leader Eugene Debs to serve 10 years in federal prison for violating the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that made it a federal offense to interfere with U.S. involvement in World War I. How did Debs run afoul of this notorious law? He delivered an anti-war speech to a crowd of leftists out for an afternoon picnic in Canton, Ohio.
Debs' speech was plainly protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But constitutional fidelity was not exactly a defining characteristic of the Woodrow Wilson administration, which helped to craft the Espionage Act and then used the vile law to silence political opponents. To make matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court also failed to take the First Amendment at its word. Writing for the Court in the unfortunate case of Debs v. United States, Progressive hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. brushed aside Debs' First Amendment arguments and upheld his preposterous conviction.
By 1919 World War I was over and U.S. troops began returning home. But Debs still languished in prison, his health faltering. President Wilson, whose health was in even worse shape, came under pressure to pardon the ailing Debs. But Wilson flatly refused to free the political prisoner. As H.L. Mencken, an outspoken critic of what he termed the "Wilson hallucination" put it, "confronted, on his death-bed, with the case of poor Debs, all his instincts compelled [Wilson] to keep Debs in jail." President Warren G. Harding finally pardoned Debs in 1921.
The case of Debs v. United States went down nearly a century ago, but it still contains some useful lessons for the present day. Foremost among them is the lesson of what can happen when the government and the courts stop respecting the First Amendment.



http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/14/today-in-history-socialist-eugene-debs-s
Sent with Reeder


Sent from my iPad

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Supreme Court blocks Senate Backpage sex ad subpoena

From ArsTechnica:



Supreme Court blocks Senate Backpage sex ad subpoena:

supremecourtbuilding.jpg
US Supreme Court building. (credit: MitchellShapiroPhotography)
The US Supreme Court is giving Backpage.com a victory over the US Senate, at least in the short term. Chief Justice John Roberts says the online classified ad portal, at least for now, does not have to comply with a Senate subpoena investigating how Backpage conducts its business. The investigation demands documents about the ins and outs of the site's editorial practices.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations contends that the site is littered with ads that amount to offering sex services by women and children forced into prostitution, and it wants to know how it screens ads posted to its site by third parties.

The chief justice's decision Tuesday comes days after a federal appeals court upheld a ruling by a lower court judge and said (PDF) Backpage must comply with the subpoena. The Senate and Backpage have been deadlocked in a legal battle for more than a year. Backpage said the First Amendment shields it from having to comply with the subpoena, (PDF) while the Senate maintains that the First Amendment implications are secondary (PDF) to cutting down on sex trafficking ads on the site.
Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments