
Amy Goodman Is Facing Prison for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline - joshfraser
https://www.thenation.com/article/amy-goodman-is-facing-prison-for-reporting-on-the-dakota-access-pipeline-that-should-scare-us-all/
======
abalone
25 years ago Amy Goodman very narrowly avoided execution while covering the
Indonesian occupation of East Timor.[1] Her brave reporting brought attention
to one of the worst atrocities relative to population of our lifetimes, in
which perhaps a quarter of the population were killed by Indonesian forces
with weapons supplied by the United States. Prior to this any mention of East
Timor was pretty much mocked and there was a total media blackout on the U.S.
role in supporting Indonesia's brutal government.

I think she can handle this one.

[1]
[http://m.democracynow.org/stories/7169](http://m.democracynow.org/stories/7169)

~~~
rosser
I call bullshit.

First of all, the Fallacy of Relative Privation most definitely applies.
(LMGTFY: "not as bad as" is fallacious.)

But, far more importantly, this isn't about how "hard" or "dangerous" it is
_for her_. It's about the deep threat to a Free Press that this prosecution
represents.

~~~
abalone
That's kind of an unnecessarily rude and condescending reply. The funny thing
is, in your rush to showcase your command of logical fallacies you perpetrated
a straw man fallacy. I merely said she is brave, worthy of our deep respect
and likely to persevere in the face of adversity, not that we shouldn't be
deeply concerned about this case.

~~~
Theizestooke
Ok maybe clarify what you mean by "She can handle this one".

------
mark_l_watson
I am ashamed that this is happening in my country to both Goodman and another
reporter. The corruption here is a deep and festering sore. Officials who play
lackies to corporate interests are the ones who should go to jail.

The only thing that I can suggest is that we contact our congressional
representatives and ask them why reporters are being arrested for doing their
jobs.

EDIT: I just emailed my congressional representative. Easy to find your
representative:
[http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/﻿](http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/﻿)

~~~
unclenoriega
FYI: Your link 404s, although the error page contains links to the list of
representatives, and there's a zipcode search at the top of the page.

Concerned citizens should also consider contacting their US Senators as well.
I can't help but think that people needing to look up their representatives is
part of the problem.

~~~
thyrsus
Contacting _my_ Senators would only incite them to pass a law giving oil
companies a right to prior restraint of publication. They could tell from my
address that I'd never vote for them.

~~~
dorfsmay
So why participate in a debate about politics here if you don't vote anyway?

~~~
tanderson92
thyrsus didn't say they didn't vote; they said they didn't vote _for their
senator_. Presumably the address is in a rural area (if Senator is a Democrat)
/ urban area (if Senator is a Republican).

~~~
thyrsus
Exactly correct.

In 29 years of eligibility I've missed two elections - and I'm including all
primaries, city, and county elections in that tally; one of the two I missed
was a local runoff election that got almost zero media coverage - I heard
about it after it happened.

Senators Burr and Tillis will see a Chapel Hill address and high five each
other that they're diametrically opposed.

------
r00fus
This is clearly an attack on the foundations of reporting and freedom of the
press.

Goodman tries the hardest of any reporter I know to be objective about the
facts. It's going to be a big stretch to call her a "protester".

~~~
logicallee
You think it's a stretch to call her a "protester"? I think in ten years she
might qualify for an even worse crime, "having thoughts."

This is from the article:

>When asked to explain the grounds for arresting a working journalist,
Erickson told the Grand Forks Herald that he did not, in fact, consider
Goodman a journalist. “She’s a protester, basically,” Erickson told the
newspaper.

Imagine in ten years where it said: "It's a huge stretch to call her a
journalist. She's a thinker, basically. She came and she formed her own views,
and then shared it online. She didn't just share the corporate story, this
wasn't a press conference and she's not a journalist. She formed her own
thoughts, and that's what she chose to share. I hope she gets locked up and
the judge throws away the key."

Luckily for us, the Internet doesn't work that way. :) It's a nice view on
what happens if projects like Tor don't succeed, or if the agencies who
rightfully backdoor them allow any crack of evidence of the same to leave
outside of actual imminent terrorist plots and the like. It is super scary for
anyone to use the word 'protester' as in the article or the way you've just
used it.

Bob Dylan just won a Nobel prize, but now protesting is grounds for arrest,
apparently, as quoted from the article above. (By the way, I am outraged at
this phrasing, even though I consider Democracy Now to be extremely left-
leaning, it is like talking to Chomsky. That doesn't make it illegal.)

~~~
maxerickson
The US has a long history of county officials doing things they shouldn't.
This case deserves attention, but it's hardly consequential evidence that
freedom of the press is under some new threat.

~~~
najdifb838593
Your statement isn't logical and the conclusion doesn't flow from the first
statement. By the same token, every country has a history of officials doing
things they shouldn't. So this case doesn't deserve attention.

~~~
maxerickson
The bit about it deserving attention was a tersely stated opinion, not a
carefully laid out logical argument. I wasn't trying to support it in the
comment.

------
eth0up
And then there's this: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/deia-schlosberg-
arrested...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/deia-schlosberg-arrested-
north-dakota_us_58004d81e4b0162c043b342d)

------
walterbell
FAQ on Dakota Access Pipeline and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s lawsuit,
[http://earthjustice.org/features/faq-standing-rock-
litigatio...](http://earthjustice.org/features/faq-standing-rock-litigation)

Related legal history: "Doctrine of Discovery",
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine)

------
grecy
>﻿ _﻿According to Erickson, a woman who appeared at a protest carrying a
microphone emblazoned with the name Democracy Now! and trailing a video crew;
who can be heard in the resulting video report identifying herself to a
security guard as a reporter; and who then broadcast the video on the daily
news program she has hosted for 20 years is not actually a journalist. She is
not a journalist, because she harbors a strong perspective, and that
perspective clashes with his own._

Sooner or later regular citizens are going to apply this same logic, and
realize that uniformed, badge carrying police are not actually police, but are
actually terrorists.

I shudder to think what will happen when that day comes.

------
wazoox
My analysis is as follows: everywhere around the world big corps are pushing
their agenda against the environment, freedom and the people. You can see it
happening in the US, in Canada, in France, in Germany, in Gabon, in Brazil,
everywhere. But people realise more and more that the global ecosystem is on
the brink of collapse, that no "value for shareholders" can justify literally
destroying the world.

------
aorth
The transcript of her reporting from that day is alarming.

[http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/6/full_exclusive_report_d...](http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/6/full_exclusive_report_dakota_access_pipeline)

------
slantedview
The Taibbi article cited in thenation piece is well worth reading:

[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-on-amy-
goodman-a...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-on-amy-goodman-
arrest-for-covering-dakota-pipeline-story-w444754)

------
X86BSD
This is fucking disgusting. I've watched Amy for years on Democracy Now! look
her up on Wikipedia. She has gone through some serious shit reporting in her
lifetime. She deserves a Pulitzer prize IMO. The thug state brandishes its
billy club on her AGAIN. Appalling.

------
kbenson
While I agree that journalists should have protections, and think Amy Goodman
should not be prosecuted, I have some issues with how _this_ article is
presented.

 _﻿ The scene was full of movement. Overhead, a helicopter hovered, circled,
while back on the ground, protesters began to report burning eyes, and
dogs—dogs lurching at protesters, dogs straining against their leashes, dogs
with mouths open, mouths biting._

Is that what the protesters were reporting, that dogs were straining, dogs had
their mouths open, that dogs were biting, or is this a bit or artistic
license? If it's the former, it's just sloppy writing, as it's hard to parse.
If it's the latter, it appears to be a blatant attempt to influence through
emotion. This case is sound based on it's importance and the law, and there's
no need to fictionalize an account in an informative piece, so I hope that's
not what this was.

 _Thus far, the North Dakota authorities remain committed to their own
embarrassment_

It's not embarrassment if they think they should do it. They are committed to
their _course_. Wording such as this implies they know they are wrong but are
doing it anyway, as there's no reason to be embarrassed about doing what you
_perceive_ to be right.

I understand the author is a friend of Amy Goodman, and wants to help, but I
prefer my journalism to at least attempt to preserve the facade of
objectivity. Without that, my natural inclination is to recoil (and thus the
impetus for this comment is explained). I doubt I'm the only one, and what's
more, people naturally inclined to take the other side now have something to
point at as an indication that this whole piece is not objective and should be
discounted.

Edit: I wouldn't mind an actual reply from someone that disagreed enough to
down vote. At least then I would have an idea of why what I said (or at least
how it was interpreted) was in any way controversial.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Is that what the protesters were reporting, that dogs were straining, dogs
> had their mouths open, that dogs were biting, or is this a bit or artistic
> license?"

You don't have to take the protesters word for it, the footage is available on
YouTube. I'll dig up a link for you to see it for yourself.

EDIT: This video covers the protest, you can see the part where the dogs were
used against the protesters:

[http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8](http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8)

~~~
kbenson
I'm not calling the protester's words into question, I'm asking whether he's
attributing those words to the protesters, or those are his words. That's what
I meant by "sloppy", as the wording makes it somewhat ambiguous when going by
this article alone. IMO it's either sloppy, or overstepping the bounds of what
I consider good journalism. I would prefer it be sloppy rather than the
alternative, but as I say, it's hard to tell for me.

That link would be appreciated.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "That link would be appreciated."

Sure, no problem.

[http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8](http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8)

~~~
kbenson
Thanks for the link. It actually provides a lot of context, and made me
reexamine the passage in question.

It's clear now that it's an accurate description of the scene in the video. I
think I was thrown by what appeared to me to be a shift from a factual,
matter-of-fact description of the video shifting to what seemed a more
artistic expression of the events when it gets to the actions of the dogs.
It's clear now that the portion about the dogs is an accurate, if stylish
description of what the video showed. At this point, on reading it again
_after_ watching the video, I'm unclear whether my initial response was an odd
interpretation on my part, or justified given the information at the time and
presentation in the article. In any case, I think it's better to error on the
side of caution and giving the benefit of a doubt, so I'll assume the problem
was my interpretation, and retract my objection to how it was presented (it
may still have been presented sloppily, but I'm not longer qualified to assess
that).

I do have some observations regarding the video though:

1) It's undoubtedly clear she was attempting to be a journalist based on the
video presented.

2) I don't think it's necessarily good journalism, but it is journalism. I
would have preferred if she got a statement from the other side regarding the
event, or at least attempted it and mentioned whether she was unable to get
someone to respond or they responded with no comment.

3) Unless there is evidence she incited people to action in some way, this
looks to be a simple first amendment defense, and will be thrown out quickly.
It also probably happens a lot with reporters and local governments. She's
just a larger name so it gets more press. Doesn't make it any less important
that those rights are upheld though.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Unless there is evidence she incited people to action in some way, this
> looks to be a simple first amendment defense, and will be thrown out
> quickly."

I hope you're right. Thank you for your honesty also.

------
joesmo
Until there are consequences for the corrupt and inhumane prosecutor behavior
we see today, we'll continue to see abuses much worse than this. Hold them
responsible or they will enslave you. Unfortunately, America has chose slavery
yet again.

------
eddieh
While it is pretty stupid that the state of North Dakota is issuing an arrest
warrant for a journalist. I take issue with the sensational headline, she is
facing 30 days in _jail_ for misdemeanor trespassing. That isn't even remotely
close to facing prison time.

Journalist don't have a right to trespass and there is precedent for criminal
charges. Just a quick search brought up Arizona v. Wells. Wells trespassing
seems minor in comparison what Goodman allegedly did. Goodman followed
protestors into the construction area after "they broke down a wire fence by
stepping and jumping on it".

I'm not defending either the state of North Dakota, the Sheriff's Department,
or Goodman — just stating some facts. Also IANAL.

EDIT: I'm sure a journalist can be charged with rioting too. If they can't
prove trespassing, I'm not sure how they'll prove rioting. It is bullshit, but
not without precedent. That's all I'm saying.

EDIT 2: This isn't a constructive discussion anymore. I'm only trying to bring
up a different way of thinking about the issue, not everything is an affront
on our rights. This may be a case of that, but it is at least in the interest
of everyone to discuss it objectively. IDK, I'd probably just delete this
comment if I could.

~~~
photogrammetry
You have unfortunately missed the point. If she allows herself to be put in
jail, even for a "paltry 30 days" as you claim, it sets a dangerous precedent
and gives the government and bureaucracy the power to determine what
journalism is "balanced" and what journalism is unacceptable.

This conflicts _directly_ with our First Amendment, which grants the people
freedom of the press. It is not reasonable to give up and serve 30 days in
jail for a false crime you have been charged with unconstitutionally.

You seem so nonchalant about the potential jailtime, since it's "so small."
Have you ever heard this poem?

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was
not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

It does not matter at what scale this constitutional abuse occurs. That it is
happening at all should be horrifying to you; have you seen what happens to
government dissidents and journalists in 'civilized' countries like Russia and
China?

~~~
eddieh
I don't think I'm missing the point. You can't invoke a constitutional right
for otherwise breaking the law.

EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first
amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murderer would just need
to say the murder was their performance art.

~~~
throwaway76543
I think you are indeed missing the point. Of _course_ you can invoke a
constitutional right as grounds for breaking a law. If Constitutional rights
didn't trump laws they wouldn't be good for much of anything, would they? That
is literally their entire purpose: To be invoked as justification for
violating unconstitutional law.

The salient question is whether this is a matter of restraint on speech or
simply a matter of prosecuting her behavior independent of any related speech.
There's a much longer discussion (or court case) to be had on this point.

But as to the question of whether you can invoke a constitutional right to
justify breaking the law? Absolutely, no question about it. Yes.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
Uh... no you can't. The first amendment does not protect you from trespassing
charges. The second doesn't protect you from bringing a gun into a court room.
And so on.

~~~
throwaway76543
The first amendment absolutely can protect from a charge of trespassing, or
from any other charge. We don't know if it will in this particular scenario,
but speaking categorically? Yes, it can absolutely.

A recent high profile example of trespass law clashing with the first
amendment would be free speech zones.

The Constitution constrains the construction and application of all laws.
Every single one.

~~~
thyrsus
A quick search for "free speech zone court case" only found cases effectively
upholding trespass law over free speech. To what court case or law are you
referring?

~~~
throwaway76543
Some starting points here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incidents_and_court_proceedings)

First amendment entanglements with trespass generally occur on public land
where some local authority has prohibited some sort of activity involving
speech. There usually aren't first amendment issues to be raised with trespass
of private property, as rights are relevant with respect to government
authority.

------
throw2016
It is clear the 'international community', global media and concerned
citizenry have erred in rushing to judgement and condemnation whenever Amnesty
and other global NGOs file a report on protests and human rights abuse.

It appears the right approach is to debate the intricacies of the law and
rules of trespassing. Since there has been a systemic failure to consider
these important mitigating factors in the past, previous condemnations now
stand null and void and will be reconsidered in light of these evolved methods
of validating human rights abuse.

Of course some apologists would consider this as mere sophistry but its
important to point out no one can defend breaking 'the law'. Is Assad really
violating human rights or are protesters breaking Syrian law?

While it is true NGOs like Amnesty and Reporters Without Borders have shown an
unbecoming lack of zeal when it comes to covering their home countries I have
been assured it's entirely due to a lack of funds and the greater importance
of defending human rights in the middle east and impoverished third world
countries.

------
cprayingmantis
She was trespassing as she covered the news. She would've been fine if she
hadn't stepped over the fence line. Look I get it freedom of the press is
paramount to our democracy but you don't have the right to trespass covering a
story. If that was the case think of all the trouble the paparazzi could give
celebrities.

~~~
magpi3
She is not being charged with trespassing. The charge is "riot," although I
don't know what that means exactly.

------
ChuckMcM
Sigh. A small jurisdiction is going to try to "put her in jail" but she will
not have to stay in jail if the facts are as reported. She will make a first
amendment claim, it will be upheld as it has been for literally centuries, and
she will be acquitted and have a great story for her backgrounder.

Now if it comes out that the Sioux nation paid her to come out, and edited her
material, and signed off on what she spoke about. Then her process will have
some different tones and the story might involve being convicted of a
misdemeanor.

But the story about attacking the press gets people who don't care about
Native Americans or the ecological risk of pumping oil through pipelines
engaged which swells the rageviews a bit on the article.

~~~
noobermin
To be fair, even leveling charges against her and arresting her has a chilling
effect on the Press.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I'm not quite sure about that, I dated a journalism major at USC and she told
me about a seminar the law school did for journalism majors called "what to do
when you are arrested."

I will grant you that it was primarily focused on being in a foreign country
(lots of stuff about what the embassy can do, what the consulate can do, and
what sort of agreements countries have with the US regarding journalists) but
there was a section on being arrested in the US as well.

~~~
forgottenpass
_I dated a journalism major at USC_

And I've read the wiki article "Chilling effect" so we're probably equally
qualified.

Just because jurnos are taught how to resist a chilling effect, does not mean
it does not exist.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I don't disagree with that. I absolutely agree that arresting and shooting and
villifying people has a chilling effect on their actions.

At the same time, while I am not a journalist I've talked to many of them.

What has been true in all of the journalists I've met has been both a passion
about their mission and a recognition about the risks to themselves about that
mission. There reports that over 150 journalists have been killed covering the
Iraq war[1] and issues in the middle east. One could argue that dying is the
ultimate threat and the most "chilling" of any effect. And yet journalists,
even now, are reporting on the heroic efforts of the "White Helmets", the
human cost of the sieges and bombing, and the various factions engaged mortal
combat there.

Journalists, by their own volition, _go to centers of conflict._ They do that
to understand the conflict and to tell the story behind it. They may be
idealistic or they may be pragmatic, but they know the risks.

And one of the lesser risks is one that you will get arrested and put in jail.
It is a "lesser" risk because "getting arrested" already pre-supposes that
there is a civil system that is operating well enough to have a notion of
"arrest", "trials", and "sentencing". Covering the Contras in Nicaragua you
didn't get arrested you got "disappeared."[2]

It is so common that the USC School of Journalism nominally _assumed_ that if
you were a journalist covering a story in a trouble spot _you would get
arrested._ So anyone who has studied to be a journalist should expect that
they might be arrested from time to time and prepared for it. Their parent
organization should have legal resources on call, and when arrested the
journalist should have a checklist of things to do and not do. Which is what
the USC seminar was teaching.

As a result, having one of the expected outcomes come to pass, should not be a
surprise to someone who was already expecting that could happen. And while
having it actually happen might cause them to re-think their career choice, it
has been my experience that people willing to go out there and get the story,
it is not a disincentive that someone might arrest them.

So for the journalist, getting arrested was great thing. It gives her a
headline "US Authorities Jailing Journalists!" that grabs at a very closely
held American value, freedom of the press. But as a very closely held value it
has been litigated _extensively_ and the only time journalists do any jail
time at all is when they are held in contempt for not turning over sources.
There is a _ton_ of case law here, and if she was just there covering the
story, she won't have any issues. And look here _48 hours later_ , on the 17th
the Judge dismisses the case (and her arrest)[3] because guess what, _she 's
protected by the first amendment._

Her getting arrested was a non-story.

[1] [https://cpj.org/blog/2013/03/iraq-war-and-news-media-a-
look-...](https://cpj.org/blog/2013/03/iraq-war-and-news-media-a-look-inside-
the-death-to.php)

[2] [http://catholicherald.com/stories/We-were-
disappeared,13011](http://catholicherald.com/stories/We-were-
disappeared,13011)

[3]
[http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/watch_amy_goodman_spe...](http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/watch_amy_goodman_speaks_after_nd)

------
Anthony-G
Article update:

 _Case dismissed! On Monday, October 17, District Judge John Grinsteiner
rejected the “riot” charge that had been leveled against Amy Goodman for her
coverage of a September 3rd Dakota Access Pipeline protest. Standing before
the Morton County courthouse, surrounded by supporters, Goodman said: “It is a
great honor to be here today. The judge’s decision to reject the State’s
Attorney Ladd Erickson’s attempt to prosecute a journalist–in this case, me–is
a great vindication of the First Amendment.” And she added: “[W]e encourage
all of the media to come here. We certainly will continue to cover this
struggle.”_

------
saynsedit
Happy to a see this trending on HN.

------
daveloyall
Has anybody heard about this story from anything other than HN?

Searching for her name doesn't count.

------
medicineturtle
Amy Goodman did her job and told the truth medicine turtle cherokee

------
medicineturtle
Amy Goodman Is Facing Prison for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline
medicine turtle Cherokee she is a blessing

------
the_duke
Land of the free...

Year to year, I get more and more disillusioned about the US. I think it's
drifting in a very dangerous direction.

------
medicineturtle
Amy Goodman did her job and has the right to speak the news on truth medicine
turtle cherokee

------
colsandurz
What can I do about this?

------
farahduane
Vote Green Party in November. That's what I'm doing. If you believe that
voting Clinton will change any of this, you're very mistaken.

~~~
WalterSear
If you think a Green Party vote is going to change anything either, you are
also mistaken. :(

~~~
adam12
If Jill Stein gets 5% of the vote, she will be eligible for millions of
dollars in federal funding in 2020.

------
najdifb838593
What's up with all these news article titles? I can't take them seriously.

"This is super important."

"This matters."

"ABC just XYZ."

"ABC just XYZ. Here's why that matters."

Like no shit, isn't explaining how something happened and why it matters how
articles work? It just makes it feel like a tabloid.

------
KevinEldon
Are journalists immune from laws? Which laws? What constitutes a journalist?
These are the kinds of questions that courts sort out. Goodman isn't in jail.
She now has a legal and public platform to defend her actions and position as
a journalist. If you're doing journalism that is as aggressive and brave as
the article suggests this is then you'd expect to get pushback. Thankfully we
have laws, the First Amendment, and public courts so Amy Goodman wasn't just
whisked away to serve her time in jail.

~~~
rfrey
"She now has a legal and public platform to defend her actions and position as
a journalist."

That's the point - she shouldn't need to defend her actions and position as a
journalist, certainly not to a court. That's the point of press freedom.

~~~
Kalium
Press freedom covers what is printed. It does not cover what is required to
generate what is printed. A reporter who sells heroin to gather info for a
story could still rightfully be brought up on drugs charges.

