Journalist Alexei Wood faces up to 50 years in prison for keeping people abreast and informed of events.
Reporting the news can be punished as criminal conspiracy, federal Judge Lynn Leibovitz said at the so-called J20 trial in Washington, DC, where journalists and protesters alike are being prosecuted for property damage that they didn’t commit during the Donald Trump inauguration.
According to an account by the Real News‘ Baynard Woods (12/14/17), Leibovitz’s discussion of the motions for a judgment of acquittal singled out defendant Alexei Wood, an independent journalist who was livestreaming the January 20 protests:
“With respect to Mr. Wood, a reasonable juror could find that he was a principal and an aider and abettor of the riot,” Leibovitz said. “Yes, he was there filming. There is no evidence in the record that that was for a purpose inconsistent with participation in the riot.”…
“He played a role that furthered the purposes both of the conspiracy and of the riot itself, which was to advertise it, to broadcast it, to live-stream it such that other could be recruited to join in,” she said. “For all these reasons, a reasonable juror could find Mr. Wood guilty of destruction of property.”…
“And persons hearing his livestream could be recruited, were being kept abreast and informed of the events,” Leibovitz said, all but defining journalism.
Judge Lynn Leibovitz, appointed to the bench by George W. Bush.
So if as a journalist you inform people about illegal activities, you may be found guilty of committing those activities—unless, in a reversal of the usual burden of proof in criminal cases, you provide evidence that you were reporting “for a purpose inconsistent with participation.”
This is a judicial position that should strike fear into the heart of every journalist. Yet the Real News‘ Woods is the only reporter to have covered Leibovitz’s First Amendment–threatening analysis, according to a search of Google News. The Washington Post (12/13/17), for whom both the protests and the trial are local stories, was content in this case to let democracy die in darkness.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly said that Judge Leibovitz’s comments were in instructions to the jury, not in response to the motions for a judgment of acquittal.
She’s a miserable slip-cover for actual justice. I didn’t know what a blessing it would be that my children are not having children.
This judge… “FASCISTA.”
I spit on her behavior. She should lose not just her post but her law license.
What comes to mind?
Facing a Year in Jail for Laughing.
45 Year Felony Sentence Threats for Film Making.
Charges of Felony Rioting for Peaceful Protesting.
Labeled as Terrorists for the Most Basic Activism.
Targeted as People of Interest for Visiting Web Sites.
Wholly Controlled Narratives as Blanketing Propaganda.
Censored, Tarred & Ruined for Speaking Truth to Power.
I’ve Been to the Mountaintop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL4FOvIf7G8
“All we say to America is, ‘Be true to what you said on paper.’
If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there.
But somewhere I read of the Freedom of Assembly.
Somewhere I read of the Freedom of Speech.
Somewhere I read of the Freedom of the Press.
Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the Right to Protest – for Right.”
https://seaclearly.com/2017/09/05/ive-been-to-the-mountaintop/
https://seaclearly.com/2013/01/18/in-memory-of-aaron-swartz/
https://seaclearly.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/journalism-crime.jpg
https://seaclearly.com/2017/11/06/networked-narratives-world-be-damned/
The linked article at Real News says “the government argued that his verbal commentary—primarily some cheers and other non-verbal speech acts—can be taken as incitement.”
But neither that article nor this one tells us what speech or activities the videographer cheered. Without that information it is impossible to know whether it is reasonable for a juror to find him guilty of inciting violence or destruction of property.
So, you cover a forest fire as it happens and you commit conspiracy to arson; you cover police during a siege of an individual who refuses to exit a building and you get charged with conspiracy to resist arrest/obstruct justice. I could go on and on.
Ms Leibovitz reinforces my view of the “character” of way too many judges: they lacked the mental wherewithal to practice law, so they took the back door out of the profession and got an appointment (or ran for) the bench where their insecure, but over-bloated, egos rule on Constitutional issues whose nuances elude these types of judges. And the republic and the rule of law are the worse for it.
Be well.
Excellent point. Does Mr. Naureckas care to comment on this?
If I report on a riot and cheer the rioters, in effect encourage them to proceed with the illegal act, I am by definition a co-conspirator and aiding and abetting.
Could it not be that rather than encouraging participation by broadcasting the events, that people would be discouraged from coming to the event by the evident chaos? Why is one interpretation more valid than the other? Simply because it comes from a judge with a possible agenda?
You are making sense. She has assigned guilt by projection — perhaps she imagines that she can read minds. I’ll “read her mind” and point out that she seems to place no value in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, or need for an informed electorate in a democracy.
In socrates2’s example, perhaps the journalist should be charged with police brutality.
This Judge Leibovitz doesn’t seem to understand that one should actually be guilty if they are to be found guilty.
She needs to be dragged kicking and screaming from the courtroom, out to the flagpole where she should have the flag rope wrapped around her neck then get run up the pole as a warning to all judges trying to criminalize free speech and protest in the US!
The judge is not blind;therefore there is no blind justice. The reason we have journalists, documentarians, who look like Alexi Wood, and not like Lester Holt, David Muir or Dan Rather, is because the corporate mainstream media will not cover these events. Now we have many more who look like Alexi Wood that come out of the unwashed masses. That will continue to be the case. The last thing the powers that be, the judicial system, or corporate media want is an informed citizenry. The corporate media would rather see ‘a peoples journalist’ jailed rather than defend journalistic safe guards. It would be advisable for all those who recognize the peril this country faces from power that be, to take a journalism class or two, and some writing/filming classes. Those skills will serve everyone who find themselves drafted as an ‘on the spot’ journalist who are inconveniently present when authorities abuse citizens for nothing more than speaking out against oppression or injustice.
judges are scum. this bitch should be iced
we need more violence
This phrase is especially scary: “for a purpose inconsistent with participation.” It puts the onus on media to prove, either prior to reporting, or during a report, that by broadcasting information, the news organization is not therefore ‘approving of or contributing to’ the action being reported. One way reporters might abide by that requirement during protests is to publicly denounce the protestors. In other words, if the judicial system continues to head in this direction, there may be a de facto requirement that broadcasts contain State propaganda statements. Particularly ones that denounce or criminalize dissent.
One question that immediately comes to mind is whether journalists whose reports could be said to have incited a riot would be subject to prosecution. I’m thinking about Walter Cronkite’s commentary on the Vietnam War, about journalists who reported the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib, journalists who reported or commented on the murders of Vietnamese women and children at Mai Lai and other horrors and abuses by government officials and State actors.
Judge Lynn Leibovitz’s comments to the jury represent an inversion of justice—one in which the justice system’s role is to prevent public knowledge of criminal activity, and therefore shelter criminals and prevent victims from seeking relief.
Well said. Attempted “Inversion of Justice” seems also to apply to recent WH protests about “leaks” of Administration malfeasance.
Commenting again, without Links — since original has been held for Moderation beyond 24 Hours:
What comes to mind?
I’ve Been to the Mountaintop:
“All we say to America is, ‘Be true to what you said on paper.’
If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic
First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there.
But somewhere I read of the Freedom of Assembly.
Somewhere I read of the Freedom of Speech.
Somewhere I read of the Freedom of the Press.
Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the Right to Protest – for Right.”
Evolution: From the extreme persecution/prosecution techniques used against Aaron Swartz to this:
Facing a Year in Jail for Laughing.
45 Year Felony Sentence Threats for Film Making.
Charges of Felony Rioting for Peaceful Protesting.
Labeled as Terrorists for the Most Basic Activism.
Targeted as People of Interest for Visiting Web Sites.
Codified worldwide surveillance on every inhabitant.
Wholly Controlled Narratives as Blanketing Propaganda.
Censored, Tarred & Ruined for Speaking Truth to Power.
Glorifying violence and destruction to incite more should absolutely be PROSECUTED.
Two words – “Reverseble error”
Obviously she knows that, Nat. But she doesn’t care. She is probably posturing to be the increasingly frail RBG’s replacement on the Supreme Court (same demographic) and if she has to abuse this jury to get there that’s just the price of her ambition.
Demolishing our jury system is what this series of conspiracy trials may prove to be primarily about. if I were serving on this jury and had received a debased instruction like that I would be terrified wondering what it’s all really about and what role I am being asked to play in the dismantling of fundamental Constitutional protections.
I have written to Leibovitz’a rabbis at Temple Sinai in Washington, DC, to alert them that one of their congregants is plotting against America. Clearly they have failed her spiritually for her to be this morally/politically depraved. I am hopeful they will take appropriate institutional action or find themselves irredeemably compromised as aiders and abettors of tyranny. Their temple’s good name hangs in the balance.
By their censure of her actions, they can nip this in the bud. Ha Shem works in mysterious ways.
The judge sucks. Moreso though sucking is the prosecutors and general state. Highlighted by one Rizwan Quershi, one of the either most idiotic or most immoral or most LUCRE-seeking idiots of all prosecutors in the history of the United States.
Good article about the judge sucking, but anyone…also look into…
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/17/j20-inauguration-protest-trump-riot-first-amendment/
I promise it’s a good article, and quite comprehensive.
as of right now he and the other 20 are acquitted right? from the last Real News Report I saw.