Charges Dropped - First Amendment Praised After The Fact
September 20, 2008, Matthew Good Editor And Publisher reported yesterday that charges will be dropped against journalists recently arrested at the Republican National Convention.
The mayor of St. Paul, Chris Coleman, had the following to say regarding the decision…
“This decision reflects the values we have in St. Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press. At the scene, the police did their duty in protecting public safety. In this decision, we are serving the public’s interest to maintain the integrity of our democracy, system of justice and freedom of the press.”
Flat out - either I’m on Crystal Meth or Chris Coleman is. What sort of moron claims that arresting and charging journalists was done to ‘protect public safety’? Unless, that is, they happen to be representatives of foreign interests that are using their position to cause unrest.
There’s no doubt that the arrests have become an embarrassment, but I personally don’t think that it should be overlooked that directives most likely came down from ‘on high’ with regards to procedure. And now, in the wake of it all, Coleman has the audacity to claim that the charges are being dropped to protect the sanctity of the First Amendment.
What happened in St. Paul was unabashedly autocratic. The only place that the First Amendment was allowed to be exercised was inside the Xcel Center, where the country’s major media giants were, for the most part, helping to contribute to the further diminishment of the Fourth Estate’s integrity.
Prior to learning that two of her colleagues were in dire straits outside of the Xcel Center, Amy Goodman was constitutionally as safe as houses. Until, that is, she decided to leave the convention floor, go outside, and attempt to find out what was going on. After that her First Amendment rights were as useful as used toilet paper.
The integrity of democracy? Given what occurred, that’s rich coming from anyone in a nation that’s spent the last seven years supposedly delivering democracy’s ‘advantages’ by way of Hellfire missiles.
This little symbol lets you @ another comment
“the police did their duty to protect safety”???
The police did what they were told to keep the Republican love fest from being interrupted by reality.
Facism isn’t a term to be used lightly, but what’s been going on in the states is exactly that and will continue under another Republican mandate.
Somebody better shut me up before I go and interfere with my freedoms of speech and conscience.
Damage done. Really, how can anyone claim in the name of the 1st amendment they let them go. The reporters need to sue the city, you cant let the city get away with that and then say they love the 1st. Not a good standard to set in the name of public appearance.
Journalists being arrested and Republicans blaming the media about everything.
There any connection?
I hate to say it but yeah… a big FAT lawsuit is the only way to stop this from becoming the norm as a way to suppress dissent.
Amy Goodman was interviewed on the Phil Hendrie Radio Show. He calls himself a Progressive and knows Ms. Goodman personally. ( although they are not close friends). Phil let her explain her version of events and then played her the audio tape of her confrontation. On the tape , she can be heard asking about her producers and you can hear the police telling her to “Get back on the sidewalk”. At one point, a very young sounding policeman can be heard saying, “M’am, m’am, if you cross this line, I will have to arrest you. Do you understand that, m’am?”
At that point, Phil asked her “Did you hear that policeman say that?” There was a pause and she replied,”No”. Phil asked, “Would you have obeyed him if you did?” SHe immediately replied “NO! Because I wanted to cross the street to where my producers were,”
So there we are. Because a person has Press Credentials, does this mean they may go anywhere they wish? Are they themselves above the law? Impervious to police orders?
The way I figure it, all who were arrested in this affair were released within hours. After it was clear there would be no loss of control of the streets. No Harm-No Foul. But the Mayor is a dork, a real kneebiter.
If it were family members, woudl they have let them go to each other? I mean, really, would that rule apply even if there were two adults who were related to each other. I think that camera played a role in how they handled it all. If it didn’t, would they have been that way about it? Would they have arrested her?
If the actions of the authorities was justified. Tell me how, because I’d be more inclined to be a little more forgiving if their were an actual decent explanation. One that didn’t fringe upon the constitutional rights of others.
Of course the only amendment in the constitution that the right wingers that have helped bring this paranoia into our country are for is the second. They are against the right to speak your mind, document what is going on or actually have an issue with the actions of the government, but if you want to have a gun so that you may impose your will with it on somebody as you may, then go ahea. Because there is no need to control guns. People kill people, guns don’t? Don’t people also make guns for things such as…..war?
Good points, Tony. But I don’t think free speech has been stifled that much. In this case, you had junior officers trying to do what they thought was right. I don’t think they were debating Constitutional issues. If you’ve heard the audio, it’s plain the young cop does not want to arrest her; he’s almost pleading…..Think of the paperwork. And the cop knew what the outcome was going to be. I don’t think it was a broad conspiracy to kill the Bill of Rights!
And a lot of left wingers like guns, also. Remember, if Guns are outlawed, only Governments will have guns!
“What sort of moron claims that arresting and charging journalists was done to ‘protect public safety’? Unless, that is, they happen to be representatives of foreign interests that are using their position to cause unrest.”
Hugo Chavez does. That’s the same sort of excuse he used for putting two Human Rights Watch people on the first flight out of Venezuela when they released a report critical to his government.
I
I find it quite ridiculous that he is stating the upholding of our First Amendment Rights as the reason for the charges being dropped. If the First Amendment Rights were actually being followed, they would have never been arrested in the first place. It makes his reasoning absurd at best.