On October 17th, the rioting charges brought against journalist Amy Goodman were dropped. The first amendment won this round, but the fact that these charges were even brought up should scare people everywhere.
Goodman, 59, a renowned investigative journalist, author and the host of television show Democracy Now!, recently found herself covering a story that, at the time, was outside of the mainstream media: The Dakota Access Pipeline.
For those who do not know, the Dakota Access Pipeline is set to be a 1,168-mile long crude oil pipeline. The pipeline is set to cross over four states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Illinois and Iowa. The pipeline would carry roughly 470,000 barrels of oil per day to the East Coast, Midwest and Gulf Coast. It would do all of this while simultaneously ruining the lives of one group of people.
The Standing Rock Sioux Native American Tribe of North Dakota is currently actively protesting the construction of the pipeline while also taking their battle to court. The pipeline would not only contaminate the tribe’s drinking water, but it would also destroy historically and culturally significant land.
Here’s where journalist Amy Goodman steps in.
On September 3rd, Goodman joined protesters in North Dakota armed with her microphone and notebook to cover the action and spread the word to the media world and to the American people about what was going on in this little North Dakota town. Goodman was asserting her first amendment rights as a journalist and as a citizen by reporting on everything she saw happening in front of her eyes at the protest.
Dogs were let loose onto the crowd of people while protesters were violently thrown to the ground.
Within a day she had created a video package about the piece that aired on the show Democracy Now! This was the shot heard around the world. As larger news organizations began to cover the story, construction on the pipeline temporarily ceased.
On October 8th, only five days after Goodman had been at the protests, she received word of the warrant out for her arrest brought on by the state of North Dakota. The charge was a misdemeanor offense for rioting, which is punishable by a fine and jail time. The justification for these charges: she was not publishing something that the prosecutor (a Dakota Access Pipeline supporter) approved of. In the eyes of the prosecution, Goodman was not seen as a journalist, she was seen as a protester. No matter who she was, she was publishing information that justified the protestors’ actions, and rightly so. She soon faced her court date.
Allow me to remind you, she was carrying her notebook and microphone. On top of all of this, she was narrating everything that she heard and saw going on around her. Goodman was attending the protest as a journalist. God forbid she tell the world what was going on. Rather, should I say, “the prosecutor forbids it” because that is exactly what he did. He was attempting to silence her as a journalist and violate her first amendment rights because he did not agree with what she had to say: the truth.
Now you tell me, what does that mean for the future of journalism? Does this mean that the majority, or at least those with money, must always have a hand in writing the news? Does this mean that although we all have the right to assemble peacefully and the freedom of speech that we shouldn’t?
While Goodman was so gallantly ready to face jail time for what she believed in and to ensure that future journalists understood the importance of informing the public of what is really going on… she shouldn’t have to.