Hacker News Reader

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?

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.

Have you read a single Supreme Court decision? Your entire comment is factually wrong.

Yes you absolutely can. That's the point of freedom of the press being part of the First Amendment. Laws that would prevent the press from fulfilling its constitutional role lose out to the first amendment.

Journalists are allowed to protect their sources, where the rest of us might be compelled in a court to testify.

It doesn't give them blanket immunity from all laws, but it does provide them certain protections. This is a clear case where the state is overreaching.

EDIT:

> 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 murder would just need to say the murder was their performance art.

No. That is not remotely true. You're being ridiculous.

Journalists are allowed to protect their sources

While that's the common perception, it's not clear at all: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-a-journalist-be-force...

Laws aren't absolute, they have to be put into context. You can absolutely invoke a constitutional right for breaking "a" law. "The law" isn't a single entity.

You kind of can.

The issue in this situation is selective enforcement.

Were ALL the other protesters arrested and charge for the same crime? Or was it just her and a few others?

If it was just her, then she is being targeted by the government, not because she broke the law, but because she made them look bad.

It hinges on the motive of the arresting party.

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.

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.

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.

No, it cannot. Trespass is illegal. Trespassing because you want to speak on the property is still illegal.

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?

Some starting points here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incid...

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.

You can invoke a constitutional right to claim a law is unconstitutional. If the courts agree, the law is effectively nullified.

For individuals breaking constitutional laws, this is irrelevant.

Laws themselves aren't inherently Constitutional. It's their application vis a vis a particular scenario which must withstand scrutiny.

In this case, the question is whether a charge of "rioting" or "trespassing" or whichever charge is currently in play withstands this scrutiny. Generally, application of these laws pass Constitutional muster. On occasion, they do not.

Constitution is above the law.

I think the constitution is the law. Right?

Constitution is above the law because it is not the law. It cannot be changed the same way that a law can; it doesn't go into the low-level things that laws generally do. In many ways it is a repository of meta-law. It defines the boundaries of laws and rights.

Again, with your edit, you miss the point. You can invoke any amendment you want at any point in a legal defense; whether or not you win is a matter of how you justify it.

Killing a person and calling it 'performance art' is a totally different type of case than what we have here.

The charges have been changed from criminal trespass to riot, they seemingly did not have sufficient evidence to prove trespassing, this is also a misdemeanor with jail time.

>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. “Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions.” And in The Bismarck Tribune he later added, “I think she put together a piece to influence the world on her agenda, basically. That’s fine, but it doesn’t immunize her from the laws of her state.”

This is the important point of the article, the prosecutor says they do not consider Goodman a journalist because the 20 year journalism veteran doesn't adequately represent the point of view of their client.

Another possibility is that the prosecutor didn't consider it relevant to the case whether Goodman was a journalist or not, but chose to answer the question anyway. E.g. the quote "I think she put together a piece to influence the world on her agenda, basically. That’s fine, but it doesn’t immunize her from the laws of her state" in no way implies that her actions would have been legal if she were a journalist.

It is the article that asserts that "arresting a working journalist" requires a special explanation.

According to the article they are charging her with being a rioter (while also claiming she is not a journalist), not with trespass, and this specifically because of “legal issues with proving the notice of trespassing requirements in the statute.”

So, there was an update to the article, she was charged with inciting a riot, not trespassing, quote:

It should be noted that the original charge leveled against Goodman was not riot but criminal trespass, also a misdemeanor. However, just days days before Goodman was set to appear in court, the prosecutor, Ladd Erickson, switched up the charges because, he admitted in an email to Goodman’s lawyer, Tom Dickson, there were “legal issues with proving the notice of trespassing requirements in the statute.”

"We are going to charge you with something, we just haven't figured out which law yet..."

Yep. And this is the take-away. We shouldn't ask that the burden-of-proof the State must meet be something like: "Did the State eventually have a good legal argument?"

We should require that the State be using its (considerable) resources to achieve the best "public good".

It is my opinion that throwing charges until they stick at a journalist (the only constitutionally protected profession) in order to bully them from doing their job when it is not in the interest of the State, is not in the best interest of the public. That is not creating a public good.

Publishing and speaking are constitutionally protected acts. The other things journalists may decide to do (e.g., trespassing to gather evidence or threatening others) are no more protected than for any other citizen.

This is inaccurate. She is charged with participating in a riot, not trespass. And it is explicitly because of the content of her report:

"She’s a protester, basically," Erickson told the newspaper. "Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions."

They dropped the trespassing charges. She's now being charged with rioting.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/15/breaking_nd_prosecuto...

Programmer judicial absolutism.

I read the Arizona case, that reporter was charged with trespass for ringing a cops front door bell. A cop under investigation for murder of a woman.

The public absolutely has a right to know, and knowing involves Goodman following the protestors onto that land.

I find this fact quite fascinating. The pipeline certainly was controversial however if it wasnt for illegal activity, it probably wouldnt have gotten nearly as much exposure. Yes, most agree with the protesters. I also imagine that most people dont want to have their meats pumped up with hormones. Does that give the citizens grounds to break into farms and destroy/steal property? To protest offshore exploitation, is tresspassing onto private cargoboats reasonable?

Id like to know if theres a form of successful activism that doesnt have to devolve into criminal activity, even if minor. From what I gather, usually companies/parties complicit in the problem activities can simply ignore protests.