Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkurz | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> are there crimes that journalists frequently commit for which they are not charged?

I suspect for trivial ones like this (tresspass), it is pretty common. This guy was tresspassing in the wake news-worthy trespassers. A rationally self-interested owner might want to let the journalist off to avoid bad press.

That said, the other journalists remained at the gate. So this guy was going beyond the informal norms around there. Also it says: Mr. Brake embedded himself with a largely Indigenous group of protesters (which he refers to as “land protectors”) while they occupied workers’ accommodations. He live streamed their protest for several days.

So maybe he was seen as one of the protesters rather than a journalist covering them. Also does he cover a multi-day tresspass? If so, it is clearer that he should have sought permission from the owners before going in to film; at least after the initial rush.

There was also property damage with the gate being broken, but I doubt that applies.

There was also a specific injunction against the protest, not just trespassing, and it was multiday trespassing, not just entering a private propety to film something of interest and then leaving.

Was it necessary for him to be there integrated as one of them for the whole disruption to get the story? Im curious what line youd have to cross to be a protestor, not just a reporter.

Embedded reporting is pretty common, including in situations where merely being there is illegal.

Their reporting is less likely to be seen as a public good, but I imagine that paparazzi are charged for trespass and/or assault with some frequency. Just as not all trespass is a like, not all reporting is either. I think a judge would be more sympathetic to trespass that reveals, say, prison corruption than a celebrity affair.

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".

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.

From what I've read, it doesn't look like he was "touched" because he covered the event, but because he, practically, participated in it. I can imagine a situation when someone can do it with the sole intention to provide information which can save somebody from a wrong conviction, for instance, but it anyway would require a due process, and a judge to weigh a motive. You cannot realistically have a blanket legislation immunizing everyone who streams, or records - that would be too easy to abuse. So the case doesn't look like Canadian democracy is in real danger.

And, by the way, let's not overestimate the alleged sanctity of journalism: they are humans too, as any of us, and there are numerous examples of journalists distorting facts for variety of reasons, starting from personal beliefs, and ending with bribes.

I'm a developer, it's still illegal for me to use holes found by other developers. He trespassed on private property, his being called a "journalist" doesn't much change that.

There are many cases where sticking around someone (e.g. a civil activist like MLK) was illegal enough for having a criminal charge over you; but journalist get immunity -to a degree, explicit or implicit- for being so; so yeah I think your analogy here misses the point.

> but journalist get immunity -to a degree, explicit or implicit- for being so

It’s not clear that this is the case in Canada, and your reference of a clearly American example doesn’t really clear that up.

Canada does have some laws to protect similar issues related to freedom of press (e.g anonymous sources[0]) and some organizations fighting for it[1].

[0]https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/3kp7n3/canada-passes-law...

[1]https://www.cjfe.org/

there is no such thing as journalistic immunity. They are private citizens same as you or me. Laws protecting the press apply to us too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Eh, I get the spectrum argument, but if there are real journalists gathered at the gate then its enough for me to say that this was a real public interest story.

Work with me on this hypothetican scenario please: I am robbing a pizzeria. The robbery lasts 10 minutes. Next to me for the full 10 minutes is a guy with big camera at hand wearing a vest that writes "PRESS" and is recording the whole thing. Police should not arrest him?

In my mind, they should arrest him, examine the evidence (gun from my pocket, pizza slices from my bag, camera from the journalist). I should then receive my 5-to-10. He should receive a pulitzer.

But at that time, we should both be arrested. Police will not sentence him or me. Courts will do that (sentence or release).

Justice is served in courts. Police should just stick to the basics: Trespass = arrest. Rob = arrest.

Irrespective of whether the guy/lady/etc. is a journalist, baker, etc.

Journalists get arrested at protests all the time. The difference is that they’re typically released without charge.

> actual criminals.

Unauthorized entry is an actual crime. If you leave your front door unlocked and I enter your hallway just to admire your collection of shoes for a moment or two, I'm committing a crime.

He "trespassed" to cover the actions of the actual trespassers. If he had been reporting negatively about the trespassers and informing on them I'm sure he wouldn't have been charged.

If you're trespassing in the role of a journalist, it will greatly behoove you for your journalism to strongly take the point of view favoring those who are trespassed upon.

That's the only way you can hope to obtain "retroactive authorization to have been there" from the property owners. (I.e. they have the charges dropped.)

You're likely not going to get that from the property owners if you side with the trespassers; then you're as good as one of them as far as they are concerned.

This is a good point. And as another user pointed out, perhaps if he was there filming for days he should have requested permission from the landowners to do so.

This story was a bit concerning at first, given what the phrasing implies, but if the above case is true (that he did not request permission, and that journalists don't have legal immunity in that situation) I think the journalist could have taken steps to ensure legality and cover his story.

I can't imagine the landowner would be all that enthusiastic about allowing a broadcaster direct access to the people who are protesting him. It would be pretty easy to say no "for safety reasons".

"Hey Mr Factory Farm, mind if I stay with these protesters trying to uncover abuses and film their findings? Please and thanks!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com