Prosecutors Announce That All Charges Against Journalists in St. Paul Will Be Dropped

In follow up to a story that was reported and discussed here at the Beacon, it has just been announced that all charges against journalists arrested in St. Paul during the RNC will be dropped.

The decision was announced by local authorities in St. Paul following widespread public outrage at the detention and the filing of charges against journalists arrested while covering the events outside the RNC. Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul released the following statement:

“This decision reflects the values we have in Saint Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press. A journalist plays a special role in our democracy and that role is just too important to ignore. 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.”

While this is certainly recognized as encouraging news by advocates of independent media and freedom of the press, there are many questions that still remain. Nancy Doyle Brown of Twin Cities Media Alliance states:

"This is an important first step, but many questions remain. We still need answers about why and how journalists got swept up in these arrests in the first place. And more than anything else, we need to ensure that this never happens again. We’ll never know how many important stories never got told because their authors were behind bars, not in the streets."

After the arrest of Amy Goodman and two of her producers from the independent media program Democracy Now!, thousands of people from across the country signed letters and statements calling for their release. The media reform organization FreePress delivered over 60,000 of these letters and statements to St. Paul City Hall demanding that they drop all charges against journalists. Josh Silver of FreePress reacted this news today:

"We’re pleased that the St. Paul authorities ultimately acted to uphold the rights of all journalists -- including those citizens using blogs, cheap cameras and cell phones to report news as it happens. Our task now is to ensure that our press remains free to report on the events, issues and stories that matter to our country, our communities, and our democracy."

Part of ensuring the future freedom of the press and of reporters to report on dissent is to critically examine why these actions were taken and how they can be prevented in the future. The statement from the Mayor's office implies that this is how the system should work; police should detain and arrest indiscriminately and then the courts will end up sorting it all out. Instead of assuming that this is an overall success there needs to be an examination into how these incidents happened, how they can be prevented in the future, and the impact this model of law enforcement has on a free society. The fact that so many people rose up and demanded that these charges be dropped is a victory for the people in standing up for basic rights. While this should certainly be viewed as a victory, it should be viewed through a bittersweet lens. Arresting journalists interrupts the important work that they are doing on the ground during the event being covered and this is valuable time that has been squandard can not be given back. Examination also needs to be done over the strategy of preemptively raiding journalists houses and rented space as was done in the case of I-Witness Video. This practice led police to copy documents and photograph items within the property, detain the individuals inside, and interrupt the journalistic work that was done. The following questions need to be asked in this case:

1. What did police do with the information collected from these locations?
2. Is any of this information being stored in a database that can be used against activists that have not broken any law, in future high publicity events?

There is no telling the amount of information compiled about journalists who have not been charged or convicted with a crime during the DNC and RNC. This is relevant and needs to be addressed.

This article can also be viewed at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

The Crackdown of Dissent in St. Paul: Preemptive Raids, Journalist Arrests, and Police Intimidation

At the end of my last article in which I summarized the police reaction to dissent during the DNC, I mentioned how there were already indications that we would see more of the same in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention. This observation unfortunately turned out to be accurate and now that the RNC has concluded, there is an opportunity to look back and examine how police dealt with dissent and with the independent media.

The first incident, which I discussed briefly in my past article, involved three members of the group Glass Bead Collective who were in town to document incidents of police misconduct. As reported in the Minnesota Star Tribune, members of this group were detained for over an hour after they were questioned about a rash of car burglaries in the area. Police searched the belongings of all three members without their consent and confiscated video cameras, cell phones, a laptop, and other items that belonged to the group. This incident set the stage for an array of police action that targeted peaceful protesters and journalists.

On the Saturday prior to the start of the convention members of I-Witness Video were gathered for a meeting in a house that they were renting while they were in town for the RNC. I-Witness video is a New York based organization that uses video to document police interaction with protesters in order to protect civil liberties. I-Witness video was largely successful during the 2004 RNC in New York City in providing video to clear many peaceful protesters of allegations by police. On Saturday August 30, members of I-Witness Video were gathered in their host house in St. Paul when they received two visitors at the front door. An FBI Agent and a Wisconsin Deputy Sheriff were at the door and inquired about the location of a gentleman that supposedly lived at that location. The Sheriff and FBI Agent specifically stated: "we're not here about the convention" and asked when the gentleman of interest may be returning home. The people inside the house said that they did not know and the agents then left. Two hours later upward of 20 officers arrived back at the house and surrounded the location. Those inside the house were told that if they left, they would be detained. The officers did not have a search warrant at that time, but stayed surrounding the house until one arrived over two hours later. The only problem was, that the warrant was for the address next door. Police moved into the location next door, detaining the owner of the building, and then moved into the I-Witness Video apartment by busting through the attic with guns drawn. 7 members were detained in the backyard while police took photos, made copies of documents, and searched through the entire house. When the police concluded their search, they released all of those detained and left the property. Video of this incident can be found here for Part 1 and here for Part 2. This video was shot by former Democracy Now! producer Elizabeth Press while she was inside the house working with I-Witness Video. You can also view comments by the landlord of the property here.

While this incident was one of many that occurred on the Saturday before the beginning of the Convention, it was not the last for I-Witness Video. Police returned to the same location that was raided on Saturday on Wednesday, September 3rd. Members inside the house noticed that police had pulled up to the house and started to unload equipment from their vehicles. An attorney with the National Lawyers Guild, Geneva Finn, went out and spoke with police. The officers said that they had received information that anarchists were holding people hostage inside the home and that they were responding to a kidnapping. Finn escorted the officers in to the location and showed them that no one was being held hostage at the location and then asked the officers to leave. The officers refused to leave until their Sergent arrived on the scene. After the officers left the members of I-Witness video were informed that their landlord wanted them to immediately leave the house due to all of the commotion over the past week. I-Witness video packed up, left, and set up shop at Free Speech TV's studios in St. Paul. I-Witness Video admits that all of this harassment by police has greatly interfered with their ability to do the job that they had set out to do.

In addition to preemptive raids on locations prior to the Convention, journalists found themselves targeted as they went about trying to do their job during the Convention. As was posted earlier in the week on this site , two producers of Democracy Now!, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, along with host Amy Goodman, were arrested on Monday, September 1. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested as they were reporting on a protest that police converged upon and Goodman was arrested when she asked to speak with a commanding officer about the arrest of her producers. Salazar videotaped her own arrest and you can view the video here and you can view Goodman's arrest here. At the time of this article felony charges have not yet been filed against Kouddous and Salazar and Amy Goodman has been charged with a misdemeanor of obstructing a legal process and interfering with a peace officer. Along with the three Democracy Now! members, Associated Press photographer Matt Rourke was also arrested and later released.

On Wednesday, September 3, about two dozen journalists were arrested as they attempted to cover the protests on Marion Street Bridge. Protesters and journalists (including AP reporters Amy Forliti and John Krawczynski) were trapped by riot police on the bridge over an interstate highway. Police blocked both ends of the bridge, ordered approximately 200 people to sit down and keep their hands over their heads as police then arrested and led away protesters and journalists two at a time. You can view videos of this incident from WCCO here, The Uptake here, and Pioneer Press here. Police have been criticized in this incident and in other incidents from the week, for utilizing force against otherwise peaceful protests.

The New York based Committee to Protect Journalists has condemned these arrests and the organization FreePress has stated that the arrests were "an orchestrated round up of independent [media] covering the Republican National Convention." FreePress collected 60,000 letters by concerned citizens and delivered them to Mayor Chris Coleman's office on Friday demanding that all charges be dropped against journalists arrested during the Convention.

A preliminary tally has placed the number of those arrested during the RNC at 818 people, this number does not include those who were detained, like those of I-Witness Video prior to the Convention. As journalists and videographers were rounded up with other protesters a new precident for police action has been set. In future situations where large amount of citizens will protest I fear that the actions taken by the police in St. Paul will be viewed not only as a success, but as a new model of cracking down on dissent. The kind of preemptive raids on locations were seen on the Saturday prior to the Convention are of particular concern. In these scenarios, no crime had been committed and police detained and searched the locations preemptively. This type of action blurs the line between the protection of important rights and the action that police feel they can take against those who they feel have the potential to commit a crime. At the time of this article, 8 members of the RNC Welcoming Committee, an organization that provided logistics and coordination for many of the protests, have been charged with "conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism", a felony punishable by up to 7 1/2 years in prison. Those charged with this crime were arrested in the house raids before the Convention started and police have admitted to infiltrating this group in order to build a year long case against these individuals. Attorney Bruce Nestor is the Minnesota Chapter's President of the National Lawyer's Guild and states:

These charges are very significant for any political activist or anybody that cares about the right to organize politically or for freedom of speech. By equating plans or stated plans to blockade traffic and to try to disrupt the convention with acts of terrorism, the conspiracy nature of the charge, where you punish people for what they say or advocate, but not for what they do, really creates a possibility that anybody organizing a large-scale demonstration, at which civil disobedience may be a part of it or where other individuals may then engage in some type of property damage, creates the potential that all those organizers can be charged with these conspiracy charges and face significant penalties.

We will continue to follow these incidents and those individuals who have had charges filed against them and report back on the outcome. Regardless of whether many of the filed charges result in convictions, it is clear that St. Paul will be looked upon as a great success in the cities ability to contain and suppress dissent.

This article is also available at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Amy Goodman arrested at the RNC

Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar were arrested yesterday by St. Paul police outside the Republican National Convention. Kouddous and Salazar were covering the protests and filming when they were arrested and detained. Both Kouddous and Salazar had proper press identification but were manhandled by police. Salazar was dragged by her leg and received scrapes and a bloody nose. Kouddous was slammed against a wall which has resulted in chest and back pain. Amy Goodman was arrested after she approached police and asked to speak to a commanding officer regarding her producers. Police then yanked her by the arm and arrested her. Video is below:




Amy Goodman was released and is being charged with obstruction of a legal process and interference with a peace officer. There have conflicting reports on whether Kouddous and Salazar have been released, but I just placed two calls to the Ramsey County Detention Facility where they confirmed that both were still being held and have not yet been booked. I attempted to confirm the reports that both were being charged with a felony of suspicion to riot, but the jail could not confirm this at the time. I have left a message with the Mayor's office of St. Paul for comment, but at the time of this article, have not had my call returned. I should also note that my first call to the Ramsey County Detention Facility resulted in the woman on the other end of the line becoming very confused as I attempted to spell: Sharif Abdel Kouddous. When I told her that I would be spelling three parts of his name she stated, "just how many names does this guy have." I informed her that I was asking about one person to which she replied, "I bet this guy had a hard time learning how to spell this in kindergarten."

While an employee of Ramsey County Detention Facility feels that detaining journalists is a time for jokes, all those who hold freedom of the press as an important right should be calling for the immediate release of Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar as well as for dropping all charges against them. In a society that depends on an independent press it is imperative that journalists are not arbitrarily arrested and held on trumped-up charges. Below is a video of Amy Goodman discussing the arrests after her release.

You can call the Mayor of St. Paul to weigh in on this issue at:

651-266-8510

You can also reach the Ramsey County Detention Facility at:

651-266-9350






This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Dissent in Denver: A Snapshot of the Voices Kept Out of the Convention Center

One convention down, one convention to go. Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night concluded four days of speeches, parties, and Democratic celebration over their nominee for President of the United States. Beginning on September 1, the Republicans will roll into St. Paul, Minnesota for four days of the same to try to convince Americans that John McCain and Sarah Palin are the duo to lead this country for the next four years. While there has been much media focus on what has happened inside the Pepsi Center in Denver this past week, it is also important to focus on what happened outside the Pepsi Center, in the streets of Denver, in order to give the public a full view of everything that transpired during the DNC.

Before the convention began, I wrote about the plans of protesters and the actions that were taken by the City of Denver in preparation for dealing with the voices of the people that may not mesh with the Democratic party-line. With the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, I would like to look back at some of the events that transpired in the streets.

The corporate media did take a little notice of the protesters on the Sunday before the convention began. Fox News sent a reporter to mingle with the protesters and to "cover the story". As you might imagine, the protesters did not take too kindly to the presence of Fox News:




The Fox News reporter decides to go into the protest march and asks numerous protesters: "what is your message?". When some of the protesters do not give him a response, the reporter says, "I guess they don't believe in freedom of speech." This of course, is ridiculous considering that freedom of speech is what was allowing the march to exist in the first place. The purpose of this "report" by Fox News, was to paint the protesters as violent and radical and to avoid any real substantive discussion on the issues. This is a trademark of the corporate media when they cover protests. The major media networks acknowledge that their is a protest, but cover the protesters from a glance, misrepresent their views, and fail to give any voices of dissent airtime for a civil discussion of the issues. Compare that display of so-called journalism with the report filed by the independent news program Democracy Now!:




As the protests grew in number and the Convention got under way, the presence of law enforcement officials also grew. Consider this incident of police surrounding protesters, escorting media out of the area, then pepper spraying and arresting 91 people inside. Again, from Democracy Now:




Video also surfaced of police physically assaulting a protester from the organization CODEPink and then arresting her when she attempted to explain her story to the media:




As we move into the Republican National Convention and more protest is expected, it is important to watch the corporate media with a critical eye when they present opposing views as Fox News did in the report I posted above. It is also important to make sure that the police do not abuse their power and use un-necessary force against voices of dissent. Protesters largely rejected the so-called "free speech zone" in Denver and while it remains to be seen how protests will transpire in St. Paul, there is some indication that the situation may be more of the same. The Minnesota Star Tribune reported this past week that three journalists who arrived in St. Paul to cover the protests, had all their equipment illegally searched and confiscated:

"The incident comes on the heels of a recently adopted city resolution stating police may confiscate video cameras only during events such as protests if needed for evidence or if the person with the camera has been arrested. 'I'm surprised and certainly concerned by this,' said Council Member Cam Gordon, who pushed for the resolution. 'While I still want to get all of the details, this certainly sets the wrong tone for the convention.' "


You can also view this article at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

The 2008 Political Conventions and the Suppression of Dissent

As the spectacle of the 2008 Olympic Games comes to a close, it is apparent that China was largely successful in their attempt to crackdown on any type of public protests that would interrupt or tarnish China's image. 10 days into the Olympic Games, the Chinese Government had yet to permit any protests in three designated protest zones that were sanctioned for the Games. 77 applications were received since August 1 and zero have been granted. Not only has China been rejecting applications to protest, but the government has also been detaining people on a preventive basis. This piece in the New York Times details the story of Gao Chuancai. He was one of the people who applied for a permit to protest in the pre-approved protest zones that were sanctioned by the Chinese government. Two weeks later, when he went to Beijing to follow-up, he was questioned for over an hour and told to return in five days. Hours later, Chuancai was picked up by police and placed into custody. Chuancai's son had not heard from him at the time of the story.

This type of behavior, the quashing of dissent, has been commonplace in China in the build-up to and during the Olympic Games. "Providing a secure environment" is often a reason that is cited in discussions of the boom of the Chinese security industry. As I have discussed and Naomi Klein has investigated, this build-up of the Chinese security industry will continue long after the last gold medal is placed around the neck of an athlete. It is part of a system that is meant to limit dissent and place the Chinese population under a constant watch reminiscent of Big Brother in the novel 1984. The Olympics functioned as a two-pronged test for China: to see if the world was ready to accept China as a global player despite their record on human rights, and to see if the newfound "surveillance society" was effective and ready for export. The answer to both questions is largely, yes. One only needs to look at the preparation for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in order to see how dissent is both marginalized and suppressed.

The lavish preparations for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions have been underway for months. Corporate sponsorships have been lined up and finishing touches are being placed for when the world's attention will shift from Beijing, to Denver, Colorado and St. Paul, Minnesota. In addition to the scheduled speakers and high-profile guests that will be present at each convention, there are another group of people who wish to use this opportunity to make their voices heard. Various organized groups and concerned individuals are making plans to attend both conventions to protest everything from corporate involvement in the political process to the dissatisfaction with each political party's platform and views on some of the most important issues of our time. Groups such as ReCreate 68 have a whole schedule of events that they are planning for the DNC beginning on August 25 and CODEPink plans to attend both conventions to protest and dissent. Dissent is part of the backbone of a healthy democracy and Constitutional protection gives those who wish to express opposition, protection from the ruling powers who may wish to retaliate. These two political conventions allow the rest of us to see how both major political parties will handle those who wish to dissent; will their rights be embraced as part of a healthy and functioning democracy or will they be marginalized and suppressed under the banner of providing security and order?

For starters, Denver police started stocking up on pepper-spray guns thanks to a $50 million federal grant that was issued:

"But the city has refused to disclose exactly how it is spending all the federal security money, which last month prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to file a civil lawsuit alleging the city is violating the Colorado Open Records Act. Releasing the information is “contrary to the public interest” because it could disclose important tactical information, potentially jeopardizing security, city officials said."

The ironically titled "Free Speech Zones" or "Protest Zones" have been set up in both cities to give protesters a designated area in which they can express their views. For the DNC in Denver, groups such as the ACLU have argued that the designated "zone" is so far away (at least 200 yards) from the Pepsi Center, that the protesters will not be heard. Some of the rules that have been slated for protesting in Denver have included the following:

* The protest zone will be 53,414 square feet in the south corner of Lot A, a parking lot near the Pepsi Center's main entrance.
* The zone will be surrounded by a fence that people can see and hear through.
* Parades will start near 14th Avenue and Bannock Street, head west on Colfax Avenue, then north on Speer Boulevard to Larimer. Pedestrians may then walk through the Auraria campus to the protest zone at Seventh Avenue and Auraria Parkway.
* Parades will be allowed only between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., and no alternate routes are allowed.
* Details such as how many people will be allowed inside the protest zone, whether protesters will be able to use sound amplifiers and if everyone entering will be subject to search have not been decided or have not been made public.

In addition to the construction of these so-called protest zones, there will be a large presence of military and police officials who will be in-part coordinated by a "fusion center". These centers are becoming more present since 9/11 and in Denver, will be used by federal and local law enforcement to gather intelligence and information on "suspicious activity". A piece was recently done in The Colorado Independent which discussed the fusion center in Denver and its activities in the build-up to the Democratic National Convention. From the article:

"Central to the efforts is Colorado’s “fusion” center, a place designed to facilitate intelligence sharing among federal, state and military agencies in an effort to prevent terrorism. But civil rights advocates fear that the Colorado Information Analysis Center, (CIAC) now housed in an inconspicuous office building in Centennial, a southern suburb of Denver, could enable unwarranted spying on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights at the convention."

Not only is new information being gathered for the approaching conventions, but old information is also being analyzed. I-Witness Video has reveled that the CIA is receiving information about protests that were held during the 2004 Republican Convention in New York City. I-Witness Video has also released documents which contain the notes and intelligence that were gathered on protest groups and potential protesters in the lead-up to the 2004 Convention. All 603 pages of those documents can be viewed here.

In addition to the construction of "protest zones" and the expansion of intelligence gathering, the CBS affiliate in Denver recently reported on how police will detain people arrested at the DNC. Local police have constructed a makeshift holding facility inside a warehouse that is owned by the City of Denver. Each "cell" is 5 yards by 5 yards with barbed wire lining the top of the cages. There is a lock on the door and a sign that reads "Warning! Electric stun devices used in this facility." A video report from CBS4 on the issue is below:




As all of this information is brought to light it is increasingly important that dissent is protected as a sign of a healthy democracy. There has been some media attention that has focused on the crackdown on dissent in China, but there needs to be greater examination of the crackdown of dissent domestically. "Free Speech Zones" should not be limited to a section of a parking lot that is surrounded by a chain link fence, rather the term "Free Speech Zone" should apply to the entire country. The rights of those who dissent should not limited in the name of security, but their rights should remain strong to act as a check against tyranny. As the pomp and circumstance of the Democratic and Republican Conventions get underway, we must take a look at how the rights of the protesters are (dis)respected and ask what it tells us about the country in which we live and the direction in which we are headed.

This article can also be viewed at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/

The Fairness Doctrine, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, and the Expansion of Public Discourse

Martha Zoller has a new column that I happened to run across today that voices its support for the "Broadcaster Freedom Act". The "Broadcaster Freedom Act" will effectively bar the FCC from making any new rules or regulations that would reinstate or re-implement standards once set in the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was established in 1949 to provide for a more balanced discourse on controversial issues that were discussed on public airwaves. The belief was that there were fewer broadcast licenses than there were people who would like to have them, therefore licensees accept certain public responsibility for the use of the airwaves. Given this acceptance of public responsibility, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to devote some of their time to discussion of issues in the public interest and to give airtime to opposing viewpoints. Broadcasters could air opposing views in many different formats (news segments, editorial spots, etc.) but were not required to air the opposing views within the same program. The Fairness Doctrine also didn't require broadcasters programming to be split down a 50/50 line, but merely provide a balance in discussion of issues in the public interest.

The Fairness Doctrine stopped being enforced in the mid-1980's when then FCC Chair Mark Fowler expressed the belief that the view of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced with the view of broadcasters as marketplace participants. In other words, Fowler advocated the position that content being broadcast on the airwaves should be left to the "free-market". Fowler would also argue, as does Martha Zoller, that the Fairness Doctrine limited free speech by giving the government control over a station's editorial content. Zoller states:

We must protect the free market everywhere it is being assaulted, and talk radio is a free speech market that should be left alone by regulation.

We must remember when discussing this issue, that the airwaves belong to the public and that broadcasters should serve the public interest. Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine we have seen continued concentration of the media into the hands of just a few companies. Though some would argue that we have more channels now with the existence of cable, I am reminded of Senator Byron Dorgan's observation that this is like many voices coming from the same ventriloquist. We have seen opinion and viewpoints become more limited on the airwaves, not expanded since things have been turned over to the "free-market". You can see this firsthand in the coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq War and in the "post-9/11 world" where dissenting opinion was suppressed. Zoller further claims in her article:

The marketplace doesn’t want liberal talk radio. There have been some shows that have done well, but the numbers are not in their favor. This year at the Talkers New Media Seminar, there were more liberal/progressive/independent hosts represented, but the bread and butter still goes to conservative talk because conservatives are so under-represented in the rest of the media market.

When we discuss topics such as the public airwaves, which are owned by the public and should serve in the interest of the public, it is not productive to speak about such topics as "products" subjected to the "marketplace". Public forums for debate, discussion, and the expansion of ideas are fundamental to democracy and speaking about different viewpoints as if we are choosing between brands of soda pop, is grossly missing the point. Simply stating that the public "doesn't want" the other view is no excuse for its suppression and in a society that benefits from debating all viewpoints, it is completely necessary to further open up the level of discourse.

Media consolidation has hurt democracy and it is not productive to think about the issue in terms of a "liberal" or a "conservative" media, but rather recognize that our media outlets are largely stenographers to power. Our media outlets produce sanitized infotainment that passes as news and keeps advertisers coming back for more. Perhaps it is more beneficial to look at this issue of "Fairness" through the eyes of a 1969 Supreme Court decision that upheld the Fairness Doctrine:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969