Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#81

Post by mirimir »

warbiscuit wrote: post #37
problems wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He'll be lucky to get the 20% tariff on Mexican imports he currently wants. I'll be surprised if he manages to do anything seriously speech crippling.

Is that a typo? Shouldn't he be taxing exports? Taxes on imports just raise the price for Americans, it's taxes on exports that would bring money into America.

No, taxing imports favors US-made stuff, which benefits US manufacturers. That's the point.

Edit: ... That's the point of protectionism. I'm not arguing that it's the better policy. It's just what he seems to be doing. As with the flap over Carrier. As much as I disagree with much of Trump's plans, it is bizarre how US policy for decades aided manufacturers in exporting production overseas.

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#82

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

gukov wrote: post #22
brotherjerky wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes more sense: > Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise res…

> "HR 347, just signed without fanfare or news coverage by Barack Obama makes it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present. Who is present everywhere that Barack Obama goes? That's right, the Secret Service. Ergo, it is illegal to protest Barack Obama."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary

This bill made it a federal crime to trespass on the White House grounds, and it made other minor changes to an existing law.

This bill amended a previously existing law, which can be read here, that was also about establishing a crime of being in restricted areas protected by the Secret Service. This bill's only significant change was adding the White House to the list of restricted places.

Some say those existing provisions made protests illegal at political events where the Secret Service is protecting a candidate for office. Our understanding is that this is incorrect. The law applies to "cordoned off" areas or where a restriction is posted and where the general public has been cleared from. Additionally, it is unlikely the courts would uphold a restriction on access based on a political viewpoint.

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#83

Post by jakebasile »

RA_Fisher wrote: post #69
jakebasile wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem like there isn't any room for measured responses between the two extremes of the political spectrum. And the two extremes look a lot alike. Horseshoe theory is something I'm seeing more of all the time.

I'm libertarian, where do I fall? :) I was against expansion and abuse of power by the Obama administration, now I stand against Trump. The difference is one of degrees. In the current case we're facing a populist authoritarian. I'm all for drastically reducing the size of government, but not at the expense of police brutality of People of Color, the expense of refugees fleeing war, the expense of Muslims (despite be…

I identify as a classical liberal and I'm not absolving Trump and friends of their actions, I just lament the current state of political dialogue. It's all binary, and if you disagree with another person you are a Nazi or SJW, as the situation requires. Facts are bent, hidden, and politicized by the journalists we depend on to maintain a free society.

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#84

Post by huragok »

Meekro wrote: post #74
brndnmtthws wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was there. Protests were peaceful, until the cops started throwing grenades and arresting folks. I took some photos from a distance[1], and also posted a couple videos to twitter[2][3]. There was a heavy police presence on Friday (inauguration day), which was in stark contrast to Saturday (the Women's March), in which the police were noticeably absent. Not surprisingly, there was no violence during the Women's Marc…

So you're saying that the police antagonized people, and that made them so angry that they set a limo on fire? That doesn't ring true to me. It makes much more sense the other way: the police were there because they were needed, to protect bystanders and property from the mob.

99% of people walk a march and 1% torch private property (a limousine): clearly the "mob" is in the wrong.

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#86

Post by huragok »

ramenmeal wrote: post #11
jeffdavis wrote: post #8

This kind of reporting encourages people to form opinions before the facts are in. None of us know what really happened there, but it will probably get sorted out soon. By that time, it's too late because we've already jumped to a conclusion.

They were charged for lighting a limo on fire. Not exactly reporting.

You are stating that reporters lit a limousine on fire. Do you honestly believe this?

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#87

Post by exabrial »

photoJ wrote: post #78
exabrial wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please cite the passage in the Constitution for that?

You can't be serious.

I am very serious, for a lot of obvious reasons. If you don't like the laws, stop voting for idiots that signed them into law. But certainly don't complain when the people you voted for approve said laws.

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#88

Post by olalonde »

huragok wrote: post #84
Meekro wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that the police antagonized people, and that made them so angry that they set a limo on fire? That doesn't ring true to me. It makes much more sense the other way: the police were there because they were needed, to protect bystanders and property from the mob.

99% of people walk a march and 1% torch private property (a limousine): clearly the "mob" is in the wrong.

That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of parent's comment. I read it as "to protect bystanders and property from the mob [that was violent]".

And his point seemed to be that police being "noticeably absent" from peaceful protests is more simply explained by the fact that those protests were peaceful rather than police presence being the source of violence.

Police brutality is a real issue but indiscriminately blaming the police every time they show up doesn't help the cause.

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#89

Post by wmt »

skrebbel wrote: post #42

So this is what the NY Times know: - In a certain area, protest turned into riot - Cars were being set on fire - The police does a sweep, arresting 230 people - 6 of those 230 people were reporters And they chose to run a headline like this? They make it seem as if the journalists were targeted because of their profession, and that isn't what happened at all. What is this - Trump lies all the time, so as long as we a…

This not an anti-Trump story. The story is about the DA and the police filing obviously wrongful felony charges.

Sure, a bigger number of protesters also got similar charges, but that's not a big news because it's everything but obvious that the charges are bogus.

With reporters covering the event the situation is different. Mass arrests during riots I fully understand, and then reporters may get caught up in the net, but after you identify the reporters, you let them go. You don't file felony charges against reporters filming the event, unless of course you are a crooked DA.

Re: Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests

#90

Post by exabrial »

photoJ wrote: post #78
exabrial wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please cite the passage in the Constitution for that?

You can't be serious.

And for the authoritarians that voted my comment down... Please explain why a normal citizen is not entitled to the same rights as a journalist? We either have free speech or we don't. Working for a news paper should not grant you extra privileges on your rights to speak freely for or against your government.
Post reply on HN