
Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests - RA_Fisher
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/journalists-arrested-trump-inauguration.html?
======
jeffdavis
This kind of reporting encourages people to form opinions before the facts are
in. None of us know what really happened there, but it will probably get
sorted out soon. By that time, it's too late because we've already jumped to a
conclusion.

~~~
ramenmeal
They were charged for lighting a limo on fire. Not exactly reporting.

~~~
rosser
[citation needed]

~~~
muzz
GP is making it up, so no citation is possible

------
skrebbel
So this is what the NY Times know:

    
    
        - In a certain area, protest turned into riot
        - Cars were being set on fire
        - The police does a sweep, arresting 230 people
        - 6 of those 230 people were reporters
    

And they chose to run a headline like this? They make it seem as if the
journalists were targeted because of their profession, and that isn't what
happened at all.

What is this - Trump lies all the time, so as long as we anti-Trump people lie
a little bit less than Trump does, we're good? Fight fire with fire?

I'm slowly losing my faith in both sides of this fight.

~~~
thirtyseven
What's notable is that the reporters are actually being charged after being
identified as such. Even if they were caught in a sweep and arrested, the
charges should have been dropped when it became clear that they were just
covering the protest and not participating. That's how it normally works
anyway.

------
vowelless
Were they charged under HR 347 (passed in 2012), considering the Secret
Service was probably in the vicinity?

Edit: Oops I meant 347, not 374.

Summary:
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary)

Full text:
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text)

ACLU: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/how-big-deal-
hr-347-criminalizing-...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/how-big-deal-
hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill)

~~~
brotherjerky
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-
bill/374](https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/374)

> Life at Conception Act - Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the
> Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of
> fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into
> being. Prohibits construing this Act to require the prosecution of any woman
> for the death of her unborn child.

Not sure how that's relevant.

~~~
gukov
He meant to say HR 347.

~~~
brotherjerky
That makes more sense:

> Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] -
> Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering
> restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on
> anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without
> lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted,
> cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its
> grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a
> building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the
> Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or
> grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

~~~
gukov
> "HR 347, just signed without fanfare or news coverage by Barack Obama makes
> it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present. Who is present
> everywhere that Barack Obama goes? That's right, the Secret Service. Ergo,
> it is illegal to protest Barack Obama."

~~~
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary)

This bill made it a federal crime to trespass on the White House grounds, and
it made other minor changes to an existing law.

This bill amended a previously existing law, which can be read here, that was
also about establishing a crime of being in restricted areas protected by the
Secret Service. This bill's only significant change was adding the White House
to the list of restricted places.

Some say those existing provisions made protests illegal at political events
where the Secret Service is protecting a candidate for office. Our
understanding is that this is incorrect. The law applies to "cordoned off"
areas or where a restriction is posted and where the general public has been
cleared from. Additionally, it is unlikely the courts would uphold a
restriction on access based on a political viewpoint.

------
spraak
I'd like more context to what is happening in the cover photo of the article,
because as far as I can tell there's nothing happening to warrant pepper spray

~~~
Nerdfest
I saw a few videos on mainstream news from that day and it looked like police
were indiscriminately spraying both protesters and bystanders. I'm amazed it
wasn't covered more, but I guess there's bigger problems.

------
suprgeek
This is just the beginning. Our great leader has repeatedly egged on his
supporters to attack the media. He constantly criticizes any media agency that
dares report facts that are personally embarrassing to him. Or ones that make
him look bad or anything that shows that he is not as popular as he claims,
or...

Imagine that you are a police officer and find some media people among a crowd
(who may or may not have set a car on fire) ... The president's words
demonizing the media at every turn are still fresh in your mind. What would
you do?

This will get much much worse....

~~~
problems
He'll be lucky to get the 20% tariff on Mexican imports he currently wants.
I'll be surprised if he manages to do anything seriously speech crippling.

~~~
warbiscuit
Is that a typo? Shouldn't he be taxing exports?

Taxes on imports just raise the price for Americans, it's taxes on exports
that would bring money _into_ America.

~~~
rebuilder
It's an import tax he's talking about. Presumably the idea is that US
producers will gain from decreased Mexican imports. How that will help pay for
the wall I don't know.

Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth it trying to analyze Trump's policy at this
point. He seems to have taken a page from the Russian playbook, in that he
seems intentionally chaotic and unpredictable, in order to keep the opposition
reactive.

~~~
rebuilder
Ok, having done a bit of morning reading, I'm inclined to think the tax is a
red herring. This is about the wall. Trump wants to get started with building
it, maybe to be seen keeping his promises, maybe because it'll employ US
workers. But it's expensive, so he needs some story for how it's going to be
paid for, specifically how Mexico will pay for it. Even if that doesn't pan
out, by the time it's clear the cost was paid by the US taxpayer, he'll have
moved onto bigger things that will distract from the issue.

Alternatively, I'm wrong, and the wall really is just a huge put-on, used as
leverage against e.g. the mexicans, or part of a more obscure campaign.

------
photoJ
This is significant because in order to collect the story, journalists have to
stand next to people doing illegal things. Since the journalist wouldn't be
there otherwise, and is not a participant, if they are mistakenly charged,
then the charges are dropped. Pretty straight application of freedom of the
press. This is significant and will impact coverage of many many protests if
it carries thru.

~~~
chipperyman573
>Since the journalist wouldn't be there otherwise, and is not a participant

Do we know this is the case? Journalist and riot-participator are not mutually
exclusive groups.

~~~
photoJ
We know that the term journalist implies that mutual exclusivity. Accredited
individual behaving badly will loose their accreditation very very quickly.
This concern of blending activists and professional journalists is something
the journalism community has been concerned with for years.

------
dsfyu404ed
The cops don't need to be told from the top to make journalists lives hard.
They've been at odds since basically forever. After all, the "shoot a black
guy, get a vacation" system was working well and the media threw a wrench into
it (I'm exaggerating but you get the point). They're just jumping at what
looks like a chance to be jerks. They don't need to be told "the president
wants you to treat the media badly". It's pretty obvious that their interests
align.

I think we'll see more behavior like this as they test the waters to see what
they can get away with.

------
maxlybbert
The media has a tendency to focus on silly things, or get details wrong, or
overlook important stories. But if you want them to work overtime to cover
something, simply arrest a journalist.

------
exabrial
A journalist has no more rights then any other citizen for a lot of obvious
reasons. They should be treated with the same due process as any one else for
a lot of obvious reasons. It's really time to end authoritarianism in the USA.

~~~
photoJ
That is not how the news business is practiced. The assumption is that
journalists are not participants and therefore are not prosecuted as such.
Similar to a security guard standing near a protest.

~~~
exabrial
Please cite the passage in the Constitution for that?

~~~
photoJ
You can't be serious.

~~~
exabrial
And for the authoritarians that voted my comment down... Please explain why a
normal citizen is not entitled to the same rights as a journalist? We either
have free speech or we don't. Working for a news paper should not grant you
extra privileges on your rights to speak freely for or against your
government.

------
swolchok
The article doesn't say: what government is doing the charging? I thought the
arrests were D.C. police, not Feds.

------
FrancoDiaz
The NYT or the charged journalists never claimed that they were actually
acting in a journalistic professional role during the riots.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
"At least six journalists were charged with felony rioting after they were
arrested while covering the violent protests that took place just blocks from
President Trump’s inauguration parade in Washington on Friday, according to
police reports and court documents."

Literally the first sentence of the article.

~~~
FrancoDiaz
You would've thought that the two journalists questioned by the NYT would have
defended themselves by saying that they were there working a professional
capacity. But they didn't.

I'm not buying just because NYT says they were "covering" the protests.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
That is the opposite of what reporters would do. You immediately tell them
you're a journalist and they give you special treatment. You don't want
special treatment, first you want to write a story about what they do to non-
special people.

~~~
verroq
Then don't be surprised if these "journalists" get detained like the non-
special rioters.

------
fixxer
C'mon mods. Time for another moratorium on politics.

~~~
huragok
"Let's not confront greater society, let's just focus on bread and circuses."

~~~
fixxer
Yeah, right. We're going to solve problems by using an internet forum. Wake
the fuck up.

------
cryptozeus
This really does no belong here...hope mods remove it

~~~
jusq2
Trump is going to be making news every couple hours. I foresee a lot of over
worked and burnt out mods by the end of 4 years.

------
meanduck
I have no sympathy Im afraid. People who cheer to rob certain section of
society gets to feel the burn in turn. _Karma is a bitch_ as the saying goes.
I just hope lessons have been learnt.

EDIT: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
statism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statism) The people are the ones
who gave their blessing and made state powerful because state _promised_ to
share the loot with them. If only people have resisted the temptation ...

~~~
photoJ
How do you know the journalists were cheering?

~~~
daeken
And even if they were, what does that comment add to the discussion
whatsoever?

