Nicole Salazar’s Arrest Video
The following (mostly audio) is what Democracy Now’s Nicole Salazar’s camera captured during her arrest in St. Paul where she, along with producer Sharif Kouddous, were covering protests outside the Republican National Convention. After hearing about the incident, Amy Goodman left the convention floor and went to where Kouddous and Salazar had been arrested. She was then promptly arrested herself.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
There is footage of Amy’s arrest here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/amy-goodman-arr.html
It is followed by some lovely commentary, you might find it interesting.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I know you’ve mentioned undertrained and overwhelmed young men in Iraq as one of key reasons to unnecessary deaths and even murder but these police overracted in these two situations. These are guys who should have been properly trained and briefed on every possibility in this situation. This was a domestic U.S. crowd. No firearms, no IED’s, and as you can see, the police were fully equipped and had the manpower to step back and assess the situation when Ms. Goodman, who obviously posed no threat to them, approached, identified herself and asked a question about her two colleagues.
I heard somebody being threatened with arrest for crossing some line. Would they also arrest somebody who was injured and seeking aid and who crossed that line? Of course if you asked, they would say no, that they would render aid. They are under the same obligation to render assistance and service to the community. No matter who that community is, be it the press or protesters.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
People really need to understand the concept of “time, manner, place” restrictions which are perfectly legal under the First Amendment. For some reason, a lot of people seem to think that the Constitution authorizes them to do anything anywhere at anytime. It’s simply not the case. As for these protests at the political conventions, there are designated areas within which protestors are authorized and not authorized to hold their protests. And no, those designated areas are not 100 miles away from the convention centers. The problem arises when protestors disrespect the rules.
In the case of Ms. Goodman, you can clearly see her attempting to push past the police. The police offiicer then escorts her (yes, physically) back away from the line. The she decides to go back and push past him, more forcefully, a second time which is when she gets arrested. As she should have been. What right does she think she has to “talk to a commander”? Because she’s the host of Democracy Now!? Sorry, Ms. Goodman, you, like everyone, need to respect the rules of order. And if you disagree with those rules, you don’t push past a police officer. You take it up in Court.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
The rules of order? When, exactly, were ‘protest pens’ first used in the United States and why has that become tolerable? When exactly were these ‘restrictions’ to the First Amendment implemented? In truth, there are only precedents, there has never been binding legislation passed altering the First Amendment.
The legal precedents regarding Time, Manner, And Place include…
Ward v Rock Against Racism
Feiner v New York
Forsyth County v Nationalist Movement
Watchtower Bible v Stratton
City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent
City of Ladue v Gilleo
Madsen v Women’s Health Center
Despite these precedents, no alteration to the First Amendment has ever been made. In truth, only on a case by case basis can Time, Place, and Manner be used as a justification and for it to be enacted a judge has to issue a written order. In this case, as far as I know, that did not happen. Therefore, her rights are protected, and if infringed upon, represent the denial of her First Amendment rights.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Matt, you use law to support your arguments. How un-American. First you change the interpretation of the written word to allow you to add “preemptive actions” as a way to protect and then you put in place a Supreme Court to validate the interpretation. But your list is very impressive, just irrelevant (at the present time).
Rule a kingdom as though you were cooking a small fish - don’t overdo it.
Lao Tzu
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
[quote comment="63765"] As for these protests at the political conventions, there are designated areas within which protestors are authorized and not authorized to hold their protests. And no, those designated areas are not 100 miles away from the convention centers. The problem arises when protestors disrespect the rules. …you don’t push past a police officer. You take it up in Court.[/quote]
Spoken like a lemming in a brown shirt DrewEsq. Protest pens are the freedom to assemble in jail. I’ll pass on that.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I’m not a violent person but I can’t say I didn’t blurt out F**k yeah about half way through this video. Notice the guy that was initially the most violent was also the first to run away, leaving his partners to the mercy of the crowd. Droogies be they all.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Mob rule doesn’t justify the beating the security guard took.
My American law is a little fuzzy, but I thought there was something in the constitution about the freedom to assemble? So why do protestors need permits? And why are there protest pens set up?
Granted, there are those that use violence as a means of getting their message across, something I certainly don’t support, but “Designated Areas” for protesting sounds a little like “Here’s your nice, shiny democracy, just don’t touch it or we’ll come down on you like a ton of shit.”
D., keep in mind, those guys are trained (one hopes) to do what they do. Overwhelmed in the streets of Baghdad while facing insurgents and fighters trying to KILL you? That looks a hell of a lot different then what those guys were facing, you’re absolutely right. Yet, somehow, the reaction of the police is taken beyond the extreme.
I’m really hoping to see Battle in Seattle. I really do hope that it gets a wider release then what it looks like it’s going to get. (http://www.battleinseattlemovie.com/)
September 4th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Protest pens? Is that what we were discussing? Because it appears, from the video of Amy Goodman, that people are more upset that she wasn’t allowed to push past the line of police officers rather than existence of the line of police officers. Since nobody seems to want to address the point I made — that content neutral restrictions on speech are constitutional assuming they aren’t overbroad — I’ll assume that everyone accepts that. Now the argument is apparently that the restrictions in this case were overbroad. “Protest pens” Fair enough. But why? Just because you use a cute word doesn’t make it so.
And Matt, I’m not sure why you took my post as stating that the First Amendment was changed. Those cases are all wonderful cites and good reading. But they are interpretations of the First Amendment. Some of the cases uphold certain restrictions on speech, others strike the relevant restrictions as unconstitutional. It is possible the restrictions in Minnesota are unconstitutional. But somebody needs to prove that rather than showing a blurry video of what amounts to nothing and a second video of Amy Goodman pushing past police officers.
Finally, Yossarian. Do you think making some insult with absolute no supportive reasoning is that persuasive? Protest pens? Why? What specifically was the restrictions set in place in Minnesota? Insulting the poster that potentially disagrees with Matt then following up with the exact same point — using the exact same words — that Matt uses? There is certainly a lemming on this thread.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I’m gonna have to agree with DrewEsq… When I first saw the clip the other day I noticed that she was disobeying orders from the police and then started to push through them. She deserved to be arrested based on her actions.
There’s been talk of these “protest pens” and how they are unfair, etc. Where are we supposed to draw the line? Should people be allowed to bang on the building walls and windows? Should they be allowed inside to do whatever they want? What other solution can you come up with that would guarantee a peaceful protest? What if I, at Matt’s next concert decided it was my right to stand up on stage right in front of him to protest? Would this be okay? Would I be allowed to push the security guards out of the way in order to reach that spot? I don’t think so.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Unlike some here, I will not take the side of the government and the police state. Do not concede one thing. If news teams are being systematically harrassed and voices of dissent are being muted then there is no valid counterpoint. Play the devil’s advocate at your own risk.
No how about something positive?
Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/flash/player_embed.php?pid=280850-2
September 4th, 2008 at 8:35 am
[quote comment="63837"]Unlike some here, I will not take the side of the government and the police state. Do not concede one thing. If news teams are being systematically harrassed and voices of dissent are being muted then there is no valid counterpoint. Play the devil’s advocate at your own risk.
No how about something positive?
Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/flash/player_embed.php?pid=280850-2/quote
So…she’s not allowed to voice her opinions is what you’re telling me? She is certainly allowed to do that. Why are you ignoring the fact that she was not following the rules and trying to run through police?
September 4th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Because the rules are what we are arguing about, not whether she broke them or not… and when did I say she’s not allowed to voice her opinion? Some of us don’t like the rules and view them as unjust, you clearly think they’re fine and dandy and are focusing on her act of breaking them. The others are focusing on WHY she broke them.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:42 am
[quote comment="63841"]Because the rules are what we are arguing about, not whether she broke them or not… and when did I say she’s not allowed to voice her opinion? Some of us don’t like the rules and view them as unjust, you clearly think they’re fine and dandy and are focusing on her act of breaking them. The others are focusing on WHY she broke them.[/quote]
Fair enough… Then tell me specifically what the rules should be for protesting a national convention.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:13 am
[quote comment="63824"]
Finally, Yossarian. Do you think making some insult with absolute no supportive reasoning is that persuasive? Protest pens? Why? What specifically was the restrictions set in place in Minnesota?
Insulting the poster that potentially disagrees with Matt then following up with the exact same point — using the exact same words — that Matt uses? There is certainly a lemming on this thread.[/quote]
I do apologize for the insult, that was bad form. My point was that conceding your right to protest is both dangerous and foolish - lemming like even. Also, I can’t see anywhere in the thread that Matt had said “Protest pens are the freedom to assemble in jail. I’ll pass on that.”
You were defending protest pens (or if you prefer the Orwellian term - “Free Speech Zones”) as a valid option for the authorities. I said it was akin to protesting from jail. That was simply an observation. I didn’t think you would need an elaboration.
It would seem that you can either start your protest from the a cell or you can <a href =”http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SpZmMIzvEUc”end it there after being illegally or spuriously arrested.
I think the larger issue here is the preemption of lawful protest by mass arrests. When protesters are again and again arrested and later released without charge it suggests it is part of a growing pattern of deception, suppression and intimidation specifically designed to deter protest, nothing else.
I think that when we have reached the point that we’re ok with having to ask for permission to protest and then to protest happily in cages, we might just as well not bother - our collective fate has already been sealed .
September 4th, 2008 at 11:29 am
[quote comment="63848"][
Fair enough... Then tell me specifically what the rules should be for protesting a national convention.[/quote]
Let them protest, if an individual or individuals become violent or start destroying property, then arrest the ones responsible. As long as there is a clear path for people to enter and exit the arena then there shouldn’t be a restriction on where they are allowed. Why is it that a hate mongers like the Phelps family can protest funerals with the bare minimum restrictions (generally only for their own protection) but those who protest the the very people who make and change laws get protest pens? I assume those who believe treating all the protesters like rowdy 8th graders are fully behind the HRC here in Canada, because those are the rules, and you need to follow them or face the consequences, right?
September 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
One of my contacts on Flickr attended the protests in St. Paul and took quite a few photos of the events that transpired. As much as I can respect the quality of his photos, I simply cannot respect the quality of his comments when he constantly refers to the protesters as “anarchists”.
Sure, in every crowd at every protest there are those that are there simply to stir the pot and create trouble. Labeling someone as an anarchist simply because they are wearing a bandana or waving a flag is just like saying Rachel Ray is a terrorist for wearing a scarf in a Dunkin Donuts commercial.
It’s quite moronic to assume such a thing.
Like I said, I’m sure that there were people there who’s sole intention was to cause chaos. That much is clear. That said, there were also those in attendance (most likely the majority) who were there to voice their opinion (legally) and protest a party who’s eight year grip on that country has caused countless worldwide injustices not to mention irreparable damage to that nations image on the world stage.
Land of the free?
Sure, if it fits their agenda.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
[quote comment="63827"] When I first saw the clip the other day I noticed that she was disobeying orders from the police and then started to push through them. She deserved to be arrested based on her actions.[/quote]
Two of her friends, registered journalists, were beaten and arrested. She, another peaceful journalist, went to the line of heavily-armoured police to demand information. She was obviously not a threat to them. How can you possibly say that she deserved to be arrested for that?
September 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
It just blows my mind how easy it is for some to defend the denigration of civil liberties in a nation whose supposed foundation is steeped in them. Invade a foreign country and the first thing that is brought to the forefront is the deliverance of freedoms. But when instances occur at home the defense of unconstitutional practices is defended. It utterly baffles me.
In truth, it is the hallmark of the beginning of the end of the American experiment. Prior to 9/11, many of those defending the actions of authorities would not be. America post 9/11 is a very different place, even for Americans. And that being the case, what occurred that day succeeds all the more every time that civil liberties are curtailed and the use of force to curtail them is defended.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“In truth, it is the hallmark of the beginning of the end of the American experiment. Prior to 9/11, many of those defending the actions of authorities would not be. America post 9/11 is a very different place, even for Americans. And that being the case, what occurred that day succeeds all the more every time that civil liberties are curtailed and the use of force to curtail them is defended.”
I don’t know if it’s the end, but i’d agree that the US will look very different in the future. I think our “Living High on the Hog” days are over. I think the “Car Culture” will die. I think we’ll be living more like our grandparents did, rather than like our parents. Living simpler and with less movement and private transportation is ok with me. I am, after all, an old hippie in the Thoreau mode.
Most political leaders operate in Crisis mode. AKA- Lock the barn door after the horse is gone. So, as we lose a little bit here, a little bit there; soon it’ll all be gone. Which is one reason I like governing to be as close to the people as possible. City–> State–> Federal.
As far as the last part of your quote, I agree. But I don’t have a clue as to how to make an open society safe. Even if the US were to go more socialist, I don’t think that will make us safer. The economics will change, (the top 5% will simply move out of the country to avoid taxes. They already think they are citizens of the world.) but a more equitable society won’t make us safer. I fear that for our current enemies to stop their terror, it will take cutting ties to Israel. I just don’t see that happening- so it’s button up- it’s going to be a rough ride!
September 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
A little late here…but I came across this on flickr early early this morning.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/diversey/2827123355/
I guess just another story to add to the collective of arrests. I have to say I am glad that we’re able to see/hear all these stories. It’s much harder to cover things like this up today. I wonder how many of these kinds of things we missed in the past because of lack of wide spread communications. I also wonder what that means for our future and how this knowledge will affect our decisions.