
Journalist faces criminal charges over coverage of protest - fmihaila
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-journalist-faces-unprecedented-criminal-charges-over-coverage-of/
======
nkurz
_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.

~~~
HenryBemis
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".

~~~
3pt14159
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.

~~~
lopmotr
What about criminals who have their friend video their crimes to put on
Youtube? Do you want the friend to be let off too? Isis did this a lot. In
both cases, the journalist is helping the criminals whose aim is to be
publicly seen. It sounds like this guy was sympathetic to the protesters so he
probably did help them with his publicity.

~~~
mattigames
Isis also had a lot of non-sympathetic (of them) people filming them; do you
want those in jail as well? According to you those journalist are "helping"
the criminals; so in your world view journalist should just not cover anything
at all to avoid any possible liabilities, yeah no; the rational thing is to
err on the other side.

~~~
cabaalis
We can't create a class of people above the law. Private property rights are
just as important to a functioning (western) society as freedom of the press.

~~~
mattigames
One less person in the property doesn't make the violation more or less grave;
you are talking as if the journalist was the only one to enter or like he
destroyed something inside the property.

------
vanattab
Unprecedented? Really? I just googled "reporter charged with trespassing" and
it sure as heck does not seem that unprecedented. I am not sure why so many
people think that just by calling yourself a journalist you somehow put
yourself in an elevated status with regards to the law. There is no such thing
as "Freedom of the Press" it's just another name for the first amendment.

Edit: I know this happened in Canada and the 1stA is not directly relevant to
this case but my point is the same. There is not press freedom to trespass in
Canada. There is a reason the other reporters stayed behind.

~~~
shaki-dora
There is a "press privilege" explicitly recognised by the courts protecting
journalists from being compelled to name their sources. Some US states have
also codified this principle in so-called "shield laws".

That's one of the more obvious counterexamples. Being a journalists can also
play a significant role when judges have to balance different rights:
"Trespassing", for example, is obviously not as absolute as you make it out to
be. If your life is in danger you can pretty much trespass as much as you want
without any legal risk. "Informing the public" is a slightly weaker
justification than survival, but it is a generally recognised public good and
will be considered, especially in victimless crimes such as trespassing.

Law isn't an algorithm, or at least not a trivial one. It needs to capture the
full breath of human life, with its limitless supply of nuance.

~~~
thinkloop
By extension, if it were fully illegal, then this would be a good time to
check whether the law needs updating. Laws are not commandments. Saying
something like it doesn't matter whether it's wrong or right "it's the law",
misunderstands what law is.

------
huebnerob
> Person faces well-precedented criminal charges over trespassing.

At what point does writing a juicy headline cross from good marketing to bad
ethics? Because I'm getting increasingly exhausted by the grotesque stunts
getting pulled for a click. This 'journalist' was charged with trespassing
because they trespassed, which is absolutely fair, there's not even any gray
area here in my opinion.

~~~
closeparen
When the police order a crowd to disperse during a civil disturbance, should
the camera crews who stay be prosecuted?

All we would have of the Civil Rights Movement are secondhand stories if we
followed your principle.

~~~
jpttsn
Following the opposite principle to its extreme would also get weird.

Should someone who snapchats their friend’s burglary be off the hook?

~~~
kortex
I think there is a wide divide between a reporter with a history and a CV, and
some rando with a camera.

Intent, like actual intent - not what you say to get a lighter sentence -
matters a lot. Some rando saying "I was filming because something something
amateur reporter" has less weight than someone who can more rightfully show
history of reporting, unless the rando actually demonstrates theyve been
engaged in independent production before the crime.

However in this contrived situation, provided the "journalist" isn't driving
the getaway vehicle, yeah, they shouldn't be charged with burglary.

Journalism is so vital to democracy, that I want lenience for reporters even
when things aren't super clear cut. Justice is full of compromises.

------
4bpp
I wonder if there are any test cases from the other side of the culture war -
say, a multi-day sit-in at an abortion clinic in defiance of an injunction,
covered by an ambiguously activist reporter for a Christian newspaper who
"does not identify as Born Again but recently accepted Jesus as his lord and
savior" \- so that we could see to what extent either the proponents or the
opponents of this prosecution are acting on principle and to what extent they
are simply rationalising tribal solidarity.

------
stretchwithme
I don't see journalists as some special class of citizen with special rights.
They use the same free speech rights that we all have. They just happen to
speak for a living.

And, last time I checked, I don't get to violate the law just because I'm
speaking.

If the law can be disregarded because of pursuing a greater good, that should
apply to everybody that can demonstrate that's what they are doing. Not just
people who are doing it as a career.

~~~
closeparen
So when the police order a protest crowd to disperse, whatever happens next
should go unobsevred and unreported?

~~~
stretchwithme
Are you suggesting that police can't enforce property rights without a
journalist present?

~~~
closeparen
I’m suggesting that a society where media can’t document protests is
unambiguously totalitarian.

~~~
stretchwithme
And that is certainly not what I am saying. Just don't violate the rights of
other people when you do it.

------
smnrchrds
Just hours ago, two members of Canadian parliament, one of whom is the leader
of the Green Party of Canada, were arrested in a protest against pipeline
expansion in BC. Not exactly related to this piece of news, but interesting
nevertheless.

[https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/greens-elizabeth-may-
nd...](https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/greens-elizabeth-may-ndps-kennedy-
stewart-join-b-c-anti-pipeline-protest/)

~~~
upofadown
... but relevant in that the MPs were also violating a court injunction...

------
AdrianB1
If I understand correctly a trespass case is reported in the article as a
charge against press? This is not bending the truth for some agenda? The
criminal charges are not over the coverage of protests, but by breaking some
law in the process of doing it. "I'm Bond, James Bond, and I am allowed to
break any law because I am a journalist".

------
psyc
My mental model of a dedicated journalist is willing to break laws in pursuit
of a story, and also willing to face charges for doing it. In other words, I
don't see the problem here. The article states this particular reported
'didn't see himself as breaking the law'. I think he's just mistaken about
that part.

------
JackFr
Under what theory of jurisprudence does ones status as a journalist nullify
laws?

~~~
gerbilly
Intent is often used to interpret how a law should be applied.

The protesters intent was to protest, and the reporters intent was to publish
journalism on the protest, on a matter of significant public interest too.

Many people have no problem seeing the difference.

In my opinion, neither group should be charged in this case, but certainly not
the journalist.

~~~
renlo
> The journalist, who now works in Halifax for the Aboriginal Peoples
> Television Network

It's possible that his intent was to protest AND to publish journalism. What's
the dividing line between protester and journalist?

For example, imagine an embedded journalist with a group of guerrillas that
perform war crimes. At what point is the 'journalist' culpable for the crimes
of the group? If the 'journalist's' intent is the making propaganda pieces for
the group, is he still a journalist? If he takes up arms with the guerrillas,
is he still a journalist?

I'm not saying this guy is a criminal, just stating that it may be a bit of a
grey area depending on how much he is affiliated with the group.

------
stcredzero
The police were trying to go after journalist Tim Pool for reporting on Antifa
activities.

------
GauntletWizard
One of the central tenets of free speech is that there's no such thing as a
"journalist", just people engaging in journalism. The protections of
journalists apply to you whether you work for the NYT or you're a hobo with a
cheap cell phone; You can document and report on things around you.

On one hand, it's not a free license for _anyone_ to break trespassing or
other laws with impunity. Being a journalist doesn't absolve you of public
safety concerns. It doesn't absolve you of It's an affirmative defense. You
take an illegal action only to offset a much larger one. Journalists often do
engage in trespass to document illegal practices. There's a despicable
practice that's become common, called "ag-gag laws", which prohibit filming in
slaughterhouses. Why would you do that? These laws have no merit... Until you
read the accounts of film crews that acquired jobs at meat production
facilities only to film "exposes" about meatpacking practices... That were,
pretty simply, not surprising or exposing anything. They're often gruesome,
significantly because these crews are making it the story. Meatpacking is and
always has been an unpretty industry, and quite frankly reportage inside the
packing houses is important - Upton Sinclair would have something to say about
it - But these crews were endangering themselves and others for the sake of
their drama, operating machines unsafely, allowing unsanitary conditions to
build for the sake of "exposing them". There was a legitimate problem with
charlatans on a mission, each looking to one-up each other. I saw a few of
these movies, and my reaction to the first one was "So you went to a farm?" \-
The latter were "That's unsafe", but not about the farms but about the
behavior of the crew filming.

It sounds like this guy is on the edge of being a nuisance protestor claiming
journalism, and a legitimate journalist trying to get to the heart of the
story. I actually doubt that it's that fuzzy if you had the full testimony,
but there's a legitimate reason for this to go to court. Sad, but legitimate.

------
forapurpose
In the comments, it's a bit surprising to see the heavy repetition of
'journalists are not above the law'.

Isn't it essential for journalists to have access to events of public
interest? How else the public learn about them? Events of public interest
happen on private land too, including government activities. There seems to be
no accounting for that problem.

(It's also not a very good argument because the law in both the U.S. and
Canada makes journalists a special class.)

~~~
jpttsn
I don’t doubt there are noble arguments for journalists to trespass, but
everyone has their reasons.

Should schoolteachers be allowed to trespass in preparing our children for
their future lives?

Should physicists be allowed to trespass to uncover the mysteries of time and
space?

~~~
forapurpose
I feel I already addressed that question in the GP, where I wrote that
journalists are a special class and why they are a special class.

------
sunstone
Well it's really bad luck for this guy to be in this difficult situation,
though the resolution of these cases will clearly set important precedents for
Canadian reporting in the future.

If he had been a police officer would he still be facing charges for the exact
same actions? Both could be said to be acting in the public interest.

In any case it would nice to see a little collection to offset this guy's
expenses while his suffering pushes Canada's democracy ahead by a small
amount.

------
fwip
Canada doesn't have a great track record with its treatment of indigenous
people.

It seems related that this happened to a journalist who supports their cause.

~~~
ficklepickle
Exactly! This is an example of the systemic racism still present in Canada.
This is clearly politically motivated. They don't want people to empathise
with the indigenous, they want us to care about corporate profits.

We called them savages for living in harmony with the land. We are now
starting to see what happens when you don't. Who is the savage, now?

~~~
4bpp
> We called them savages for living in harmony with the land.

I thought the "living in harmony with the land" thing has generally been
considered discredited along with the rest of the "noble savage" tropes out
there... (e.g.
[https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/7/516/234159](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/7/516/234159)
)

------
nextstep
Where can I donate to his legal fund?

~~~
qanjl
[https://donorbox.org/the-independent-legal-defence-
fund](https://donorbox.org/the-independent-legal-defence-fund)

------
crb002
The company got _days_ of free discovery from this guy videotaping everything
saving them tens of thousands of dollars. If anything they should be thanking
him for his coverage of the trespassers.

------
kazinator
The thing is, if there is a blanket exception for journalists, then any group
of five home invaders will have one guy doing the break-and-entering, and four
of them carrying camera to claim they are just journalists reporting on a
crime in progress.

If a journalist wants to follow the perpetrators of some unlawful entry, that
journalist must in fact somehow possess the authorization to be there that the
perpetrators do not, otherwise he or she is equally unauthorized.

There is no legal category of person called "journalist" who are authorized to
enter anywhere they want.

While this situation is unfortunate due to its particular circumstances, there
isn't any good way to fix the rules to make an exception.

~~~
Retric
The law does not operate like a binary computer program. So, hacks like you
are suggesting don't actually work even if their was such an exception.

~~~
kazinator
The _letter_ of the law in fact does operate that way, more or less. The non-
binary consideration is in the area of interpretation and severity of
application of the law.

The letter of the law can open up cans of worms.

You've never heard of the exploitation of legal loopholes?

~~~
Retric
Intent for example is an important part of the law. Holding a camera is not
enough to qualify as a journalist.

The letter of the law is critical because the word choice matteres. The
difference between consent and _informed_ consent is huge.

~~~
kazinator
Intent is hard to determine since someone's intent is not directly accessible.
It can only be inferred from behavior and other surrounding evidence.

However, the inclusion of intent into a law doesn't inherently require any
ambiguity _in the law itself_. The way in which intent factors into a statue
can be crystal clear.

> _The difference between consent and informed consent is huge._

And not fuzzy in any way; quite "binary", like a computer.

~~~
Retric
_And not fuzzy_

Only in theory, in practice these things decided on a case by case basis. You
get things like, "Is the wording of this document clear _enough_ not just
possible to decipher."

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I
understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core
pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But
I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not
that.[4]" is actually part of case law.

