SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amy Goodman, host of the New York City-based leftist news programme Democracy Now! was charged with criminal trespass by the North Dakota state's attorney (prosecutor). The charge was changed to riot, then was dismissed due to lack of evidence when Goodman appeared in court on Monday. The charges stemmed from her presence at a protest in September against construction of the Dakota Access (Bakken) oil pipeline, after the protest was reported on her show.
Coverage:
- Ars Technica
- Democracy Now!
- Democracy Now! (with video and transcript)
- New York Times
- Salon
- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette op-ed
- The Nation (prior to dismissal)
- Fortune
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 92 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected.
-- Spock, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday October 19 2016, @07:01PM
While you're correct in "this is just one more little piece to add to the huge steaming pile of evidence that conservatives aren't too bright", don't forget all the evidence available that the same applies to the left (of whatever persuasion). Don't assume that just because I'm likely to vote Green this year I'm not aware that Stein's explicit platform wouldn't be a disaster. The minor parties are always lead by someone who would be a disaster because they don't have a measurable chance of winning. But she's headed in the right direction. Sanders would have been a MUCH better choice.
As it is, if I were in a swing state I'd probably grit my teeth and vote for Hillary. I feel she's less worse than Trump. And she *does* have a few good points.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19 2016, @08:52PM
As it is, if I were in a swing state I'd probably grit my teeth and vote for Hillary.
I live in a swing state, and I'm voting third party. In fact, if you live in a swing state, you should definitely be voting third party; we need to terrify the dominant parties into becoming better, and we can't do that easily if we don't have at least a small-but-not-insignificant percentage of voters voting third party so as to create the perception of a spoiler effect. What incentive do the dominant parties have to change if people just suck it up and vote for evil? You may delude yourself into believing you're preventing Armageddon, but in reality you're only prolonging our disastrous two-party system. Our two-party system is the real "disastrous possible", not the 'greater evil' candidate whose power to inflict harm is limited and typically short-lived in comparison to the harm inflicted upon us over several decades by our corrupt political system.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19 2016, @10:29PM
Don't assume that just because I'm likely to vote Green this year I'm not aware that Stein's explicit platform wouldn't be a disaster.
Jill's platform contains no provisions which are anti-Capitalist nor which emphasize Democracy in the Workplace.
Jill's positions are NOT "Left".
They are still on the Right side of the political palate.
She still believes that things can be straightened out within the framework of Liberal Democracy (a path to austerity and perpetual war). [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wsws.org]
Jill is NOT a Socialist.
(None of the Socialist parties in the USA are on the ballot in enough states to garner 270 electoral votes.
Additionally, their efforts are splintered into a number of parties--some of which, despite their names, are actually pseudo-Left.)
N.B. Those online quizzes that ask questions to try to place you on the political palate NEVER ask "Do you reject the concentrations of wealth that characterize Capitalism and the skewed, anti-democratic power distribution with which that imbues a society?"
As such, they classify folks as "Left" who clearly are not.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 21 2016, @06:10PM
Never used PoliticalCompass.org? If you want a fairly accurate political quiz thing, rather than just a social media game, that's the one to use. Check the questions on page two, they don't hit that exact phrasing but they've got a number of questions getting at that same idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @06:44PM
That's 1 of the 2 of which I am thinking.
It manages to position Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and Jill Stein as "Left".
None of those folks has pressed for Democracy in the Workplace.
The gold standard for gov't action to enable Socialism (since 1985 and to this date) is Italy's Maracora Law.[1] [google.com]
None of those high-profile Progressive candidates has had anything like that as a platform plank.
All of those folks are trying only to get USA back to FDR's New Deal (Capitalist-centric) notions.
FDR was NOT a Socialist.
FDR's thing was to "save Capitalism from itself".
[1] The region of Emilia-Romagna in the north of Italy is an example of how effective that plan is.
There are over 8100 worker-owned cooperatives which generate about a third of the region's output.
Again: If you don't absolutely reject the concentrations of wealth and anti-democratic power inherent with Capitalism, you aren't "Left".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]