The article contains this info at a high level and links to more in-depth info about it. Some jurisdictions make arrests public, btw. And all you need to make an arrest is "probable cause", so you might not always get a satisfying answer about why a journalist was arrested. Since you're asking honestly, I'm going to be honest with you. We're talking about well over 100 arrests here. It's dishonest to lump all these situations together and the HN community is not equipped to give you the info you seek anyway. Arrest records are, court records are, first hand reports are, and it is relatively easy to find this stuff, if you're honestly curious. Since this happened so recently, you can also reach out to the people directly involved. Some reports may contradict each other. Some common threads may appear.
Do you actually have to commit a crime or can you be arrested as part of crowd control technique and released later?
You can be arrested without committing a crime.
Will they be charged with something in court?
As some of these are fairly recent matters and court systems are moving slowly due to the pandemic, the answer to your last question might not be clear at this time. This will be public record if they are.
They were moving slowly even before the pandemic. In some places the difference between trial wait times pre/post covid shutdowns is 18 months now being 24 months.
I'm associated with a case that was a summary offense issued in August. It's been continued twice (not related to covid) and won't be heard until January at the earliest. This is at a magistrate level which is supposed to provide quicker resolution than the "real" courts.
I'm not sure if any were charged with anything that stuck, because likely none of them committed any actual crimes. It's just police abusing their power.
> likely none of them committed any actual crimes
What makes you say that?
You read enough good books and articles about current events and history and then are able to make reasonable inferences.
Suppressing, or evening worse distorting historical knowledge is always a tool of authoritarians and oppressors.
Which is imho part of why so many folks here in the U.S. are so historically illiterate :/ :(.
Watch the Lafayette Square clearing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L1gZApugd0
Now notice a few things:
1. The first cop who throws a punch at them is clearly abusing his power.
2. A 2nd cop realizes what's going on, pulls the 1st cop off the news crew, and provides a place for the news reporters to run away. (This isn't clear from the Australian news camera. But some people filmed this incident from a 2nd or 3rd angle. The news crew was defended by one of the cops)
The officers who wish to intimidate the media exist. But there are also officers who realize this is a very, very bad idea.
-----------------------
The right-wing media (which a large number of cops do follow) have been describing "the mainstream media" as the enemy of the people for years. Its not surprising that those particular cops who listen to that message are now beginning to throw punches at media crew.
We're now seeing the results of that indoctrination. If the media is the enemy, then it is "fair" to arrest, punch, and otherwise intimidate them.
We are supposed to have a rule of law because we can't rely on the beneficience of individuals. The fact that there may be good cops doesn't change the fact that, by and large, they act as if they are above the law because they in fact are. The reluctance of prosecutors and juries to address even clear police misconduct is well documented.
Its pretty clear from Officer#1's actions that he did not like that camera.
----------
Here's an alternative angle, in case you're confused by the 1st person perspective: https://www.abc.net.au/cm/rimage/12312456-16x9-xlarge.png?v=...
It is very clear that this officer is attacking the cameraman. The only two people on that corner are the cameraman and the reporter, and given their equipment and press-badges, it is very obvious that they're media. (Not "little blogger on random website". Its obvious that they are big-media, ABC 7 to be specific).
-----------
It should be noted that Trump was clearing the area to give a press briefing. The press belonged there, if only to cover the President's new announcement in a few minutes.
The protesters had a right to be there too (but I realize this is a harder point to sell to conservatives and am willing to keep this as an aside). But it was clear that Trump chose to clear this particular group of protesters as an intimidation factor. There was no need for Trump to give a press briefing in this location (when he was already giving a briefing from the White House). Trump knew there were protesters here and wanted to physically intimidate them with a police clearing.
After a while it became clear it was to deter them from returning to the protests the next day.
The Portland DA dropped all charges except felony rioting (lighting fires) for most protesters.
I am not saying that they are better or worse than traditional press, which I have a strong aversion to, I am just saying they are not impartial and are very often just Twitter journalists who are protesting at the same time they are working, and as such these numbers don’t tell the full story. I happily follow them to see on the ground footage, but you have to take their editorial viewpoint with a huge grain of salt.
*Edited to add "many" in describing press, since my original statement implied all, which is obviously not true.
So you’re saying you just don’t like the press, basically.
Except maybe the press that says what you like?
Because tbh everything you wrote just sounds like a lot of authoritatively-stated opinion.
Which tells me that you’re either uneducated about facts-, or, looking to shift the conversation away from facts.
For that matter, what’s wrong with activism? And activism against what, specifically?
You don’t even mention that. Just “activists”.
LOL I watch twitter too and didn’t see what you saw. Here:
https://www.opb.org/news/article/aclu-sues-portland-oregon-p...
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2020/06/07/portland-reporter...
“ Video taken from a helicopter by WW's news partner KATU-TV around 11:45 pm on June 6 shows a person filming police in Chapman Square, until an officer turns to him, hits him with a baton and twice pepper-sprays him in the face.
... “‘As the man sputtered and spit and gasped, I, for reasons that I'm sure are clear, shouted to get the fuck off his neck,’ Farley recalls. ‘This is the moment a fourth officer approached, reaching for his baton.’
Farley says he believes officers targeted him because he was filming the arrest.“
Press-activists indeed.
I can agree that police misconduct happens, while also say that many of the journalists in Portland covering the protests are literally there participating in protesting as well by virtue of what they are doing and what they say. I can also say this while respecting the work they are doing as journalists (which is why I follow them). These are not mutually exclusive statements as far as I can tell.
While some journalists in Portland may be actively engaged as you describe, I think it's inaccurate and unfair to expand that into a generalization of most journalists in Portland.
Reminder that a CNN journalist was arrested during a live broadcast this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftLzQefpBvM
I'm not sure riot declarations are supposed to allow the police to arrest journalists this way. (And if they are, we should challenge them on Constitutional grounds.)
These journalists are (1) harder to identify, (2) have a different relationship to the news in that they aren't traveling to cover a news event, they are local citizens concerned about an outcome and documenting an event that often, then are emotionally strongly connected to, and (3) there is no governing body or corporate rules or sponsors that make their actions understandable and predictable.
Citizen journalism gives me more valuable insight into what is happening on the streets, though it takes more work on my part to sort through and develop my own narrative. I mostly discount the narrative journalists apply and try to figure out the facts from the material presented (except when I am consuming opinion pieces, where my explicit goal is to evaluate someone's narrative and viewpoint). I think this model holds some promise, though I am concerned that the sheer volume of material makes this untenable except the privileged few who have the time or mental space to through it all. Also, traditional media sources are just buying up these videos and accounts rather than sending their own crews, so we are already seeing this stuff applied nationwide, regardless whether someone views it on twitter or reads about it on a news website.
- Resisting/obstructing an officer
- Failure to disperse
- violating curfew (journalists are exempted here)
According to the report most charges are being thrown out. Do reporters have immunity to the first 3 violations in that list during a protest?
Aren't all laws 'fabricated' by legislators? But disturbing the peace is a law like any other, whether you think it's a 'natural' or 'fabricated' law. It's pretty ancient more like natural laws.