SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Snopes reports
Six journalists could spend up to 10 years in prison after being arrested during protests against President Donald Trump's inauguration.
The Guardian identified the journalists as freelancer Aaron Cantú; Vocativ senior producer Evan Engel; Jack Keller, producer for the online documentary Story of America; independent journalists Matt Hopard and Shay Horse; and RT America reporter Alex Rubinstein.
The group was charged under a District of Columbia statute penalizing "every person who willfully incited or urged others to engage" in a riot causing more than $5,000 in property damage with the potential 10-year prison sentence and a fine of up to $25,000. More than 200 people in total were arrested the day of the 20 January 2017 inauguration; they were reportedly arraigned the following day and will be back in court in February and March.
[...] Another independent journalist and documentarian, Tim Pool, said on Twitter that he and two NBC News journalists were also arrested during the 20 January 2017 demonstrations but released without charges. Pool said that a supervising officer told him "no less than three times" that they were under arrest. NBC News has not responded to our request for comment regarding Pool's account.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by donkeyhotay on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:35PM
More than likely what happened is that they argued with the cops at some point. That's how it works. When a riot is going on and the cops tell you to move on or get out of the way, or whatever, and you decide you want to argue with the cops, you get arrested for inciting a riot. It might be unfair, but that's the way it works. Cops are tense at a riot because they're scared that things will get even more out of control. They don't like taking time arguing and sorting things out. Again, I'm not saying it's fair, but that's the way it is. If you argue with cops, be prepared to take your lumps and be arrested.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 26 2017, @10:14PM
Part of the culture we need to push back on. Cops don't have a magic right to violate people's constitutional rights just because it makes their own lives easier. Freedom of the press! If they have press badges, or can produce the required paperwork, then they can film from wherever they'd like. We need to reign in our police, citizens should feel perfectly comfortable telling a police officer to bug off or require that the officer explain themselves. If the officer does not have a legal right to hassle the citizen then they should be suspended without pay for at least a few days. This one way street of our police state is going to blow up sooner rather than later if this story is any indication.
Protesting has steadily been equated with terrorism for a while now. Unless we reign in the police and hold them accountable for their mistakes then you can expect bad actors to taint all political protests and many lives ruined as peaceful protesters are arrested as rioters / terrorists.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @10:38PM
If they have press badges, or can produce the required paperwork, then they can film from wherever they'd like.
What? You shouldn't need badges or paperwork to be a journalist. Anyone could be considered to be part of the press.
(Score: 2) by Username on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:00PM
Pretty much sums it up. Everyone is a journalist now. We should be judging them by actions not by profession or hobby. They obviously did something to gain the attention of the police officers. Most likely some publicity stunt.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:25PM
Sadly these days, that something could be getting a cop on video. They hate when there's evidence and they don't control it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Spamalope on Friday January 27 2017, @12:56AM
Exactly. The press has no power or right above anyone else, and today regular folks *who are there* with a cell phone camera are often primary news sources. Being there with a camera may mean you record something that the mainstream media will buy, just like they would from any stringer.
Trying to force a Trump narrative into this is a mistake. The very public threats of violence resulted in a 'standard' response. That standard is the problem. If this were a WTO summit we've seem similar actions. This looks like a (sadly) bog standard contempt of cop arrest and charge them all situation, perhaps amplified by trying to control a potential riot situation. The Nation as a whole has been allowing this militarization of the Police, really since the war on drugs. It's a mistake or partisan politics to lay it at the feet of one group. (the whole Us VS them mentality has to be broken, and the law and incentives that create it removed or there will be continual strife - and both political parties have had a hand in that)
Some arrests may have been exactly because they had a camera. Police in some areas will go after anyone filming to destroy the camera/recording.
Take a look at Radley Balkos writing for the Washigton Post for info about the changes in policing in the US that have led to this sort of action being commonplace.
For photography/journalism www.photographyisnotacrime.com is a left leaning activist website about police antagonism towards journalists and photographers. (I'm an amateur photographer, and became aware of them from coverage of a false arrest to destroy the video evidence arrest. My politics don't align with theirs, but I find the issues they cover valid even if they stray into more partisan and/or whiny areas part of the time) I became more interested after seeing NOLA police attack a photographer before going after hippies for having an unauthorized (but legal as they were doing it) parade. They waited for a spot with several street lights out. I infer they knew cell phone cameras wouldn't work, but that one guy's SLR would so he was singled out despite being a bystander.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:27AM
The press has no power or right above anyone else
...unless you notice that that is the ONLY profession mentioned in the Constitution.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @02:00PM
But anyone could be considered to be part of the press, and the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech. I see no reason the press would have more rights when anyone could be part of the press; the distinction is less useful now.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 27 2017, @03:48PM
There's a lot of stuff mentioned in the Constitution that is only in there because the British were doing specifically those things. If it were written today, nobody would feel the need to mention quartering troops in your home either.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:29AM
If they have press badges, or can produce the required paperwork, then they can film from wherever they'd like.
This has been tried before. The official press badges were easily recognized because they all had the word "Pravda".
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 27 2017, @04:38PM
Exactly. When the people being arrested asked the officers why they were under arrest, some of the officers replied "I don't know".
How is it legal for a police officer to place someone under arrest *without knowing why*? That's not an arrest, it's a kidnapping.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday January 27 2017, @10:05PM
"Protesting has steadily been equated with terrorism for a while now. Unless we reign in the police "
Smashing windows, lighting things on fire, throwing bricks, etc. for political purposes is fscking terrorism. The Police are the ones fighting against that violent political action.
Right wingers did not break the windows of completely uninvolved restaurants, damage private citizens' property, or public property when Obama was elected.
The left cannot both scream that peaceful protests should be allowed unconditionally, yet unabashedly support BLM smashing windows, burning cop cars, beating up white people, etc.
Call things what they are. Honesty is more appreciated by thinking people than political correctness.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday January 27 2017, @10:35PM
Those are all crimes, we call it rioting not terrorism. You've already fallen prey to the ideological conditioning that will let the government indiscriminately deal with protests they don't like. We don't have any decent accountability for LEOs, and its already proven that some LEOs will subvert the protesters by having covert operatives instigate violence so they have an excuse to come bust heads.
This isn't a partisan debate and the same arguments can be thrown at conservatives. I'll go ahead and call things what they are just for you: protesters destroying things is called rioting or vandalism. Law enforcement agencies planting bad actors is treason. People supporting such authoritarian policies are bootlicking cowards.
I tend to stick to nerd news so I miss a lot of the crap going on, but a quick search found some interesting stuff which shows you to be full of preconceived bullshit.
You are so wrong [quora.com]
No violence here, just disturbing protests [revelist.com]
A good write up that honestly addresses the problem [thelibertarianrepublic.com]
The religious people of the US should address this wikipedia page... Christianity, the religion of peace. About as peaceful as Islam it would seem [wikipedia.org]
I will agree with the assessment that liberals have caused more property damage, but if you bother to read the 3rd link there is quite a good explanation. Do you care about logic and reason? Or is it just an us vs. them issue?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday January 28 2017, @01:51PM
"You are so wrong"
Peaceful protests. Crashing meetings, etc. Not beating up innocents, lighting things on fire, and destroying public property.
"No violence here, just disturbing protests"
Racist/insulting imagery. That is peaceful protesting. Not beating up innocents, lighting things on fire, and destroying public property
You probably think that those people are "Extremists" please view this video to rectify your worldview on what extremism actually looks like
" liberals have caused more property damage, but if you bother to read the 3rd link there is quite a good explanation."
BULL. FUCKING. SHIT.
No amount of rationalization is going to convince the the innocent elderly man that was pulled from his car and had his head kicked against the asphalt in the name of "tolerance" by anti-Trump protestors that he was actually a victim of "peace."
"I mean yeah a muslim just killed 50 people for being gay but remember that one time a christian refused to bake a cake for a gay couple???"
"Do you care about logic and reason? Or is it just an us vs. them issue?"
Logic and reason without evidence are mental masturbation.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday January 28 2017, @01:55PM
Forgot link!
https://www.zerocensorship.com/uncensored/isis/beheading-executions-of-five-men-accused-of-working-with-u-s-backed-new-syrian-army-video-285790 [zerocensorship.com]
Please show me the Christian equivalent of this video - if what you use "logic and reason" to claim is true (never minding evidence, I should add), that all religions are equally violent in the present day, you should have no problem finding several such videos.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday January 27 2017, @02:40AM
Arguing with cops isn't a crime. Therefore, the arrest that you assure is coming is completely unlawful, and should be treated as a kidnapping. That you are plainly accepting that that is the way it is, and by all appearances that's the way you think it should be, suggests that you aren't really comfortable with the concept of "rule of law".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Friday January 27 2017, @04:12PM
Do not infer what I did not imply. I'm not accepting it. I believe I stated at least twice that it is unfair. I'm just keeping myself out of jail. If you want to argue with cops at a violent protest, be my guest. I have responsibilities to my family, my pets, my community and my own declining health. I have no intention of going to jail and putting myself in mortal danger just to please your sense of justice, motherfucker.
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Friday January 27 2017, @04:18PM
Additionally, you are wrong. In an emergency situation, arguing with the cops IS a crime. It is against the law everywhere to interfere with a police officer while they are carrying out their duties.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday January 27 2017, @05:18PM
1. Who gets to decide what is and what isn't an "emergency situation"? A cop's job is to deal with emergency situations, after all.
2. How is arguing with a cop interfering with their ability to carry out their duties? The cop can always proceed to do what they often do, which is ignore the objections of the people arguing with them and proceed to bust heads (or, in more extreme cases, shoot to kill).
I understand full well that the cops would like to be able to invent crimes that allow them to arrest and jail people who annoy them, but that doesn't make it legal or right.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.