March 31, 2003
(Updated) Controversies Galore at Activist Arraignments
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
I knew I should have stuck to my original plan to attend today's arraignments of local activists. It seems that I missed all the fun.
According to KATU (in a story that does not appear to be posted to their website), activists appearing at their arraignment today were denied access to court-appointed lawyers due to state budget cuts, and so were released with further court dates scheduled for sometime in August.
A representative of the ACLU -- although it was not indicated in the KATU story is he was from the national ACLU or the Oregon chapter -- was present for these sessions, and indicated that the ACLU will be filing a request that the courts declare this delay an unconstitutional denial of the defendants' trial rights.
Meanwhile, returning to the arena of independent journalism, we have this report indicating that once again local independent journalists were denied access to what is supposed to be a public process:
Captain Carol Hasler, in charge of courtroom security, said that after everyone on the docket was seated, then they would let people in. When pressed about the fact that members of the mainstream media were already in the room standing, she that media was an exception. Several individuals explained that they were with the Independent Media Center, at which point Captain Hasler said, "We don�t recognize indy media."
According to this report, a different courtroom nearby was offering no resistence to those who wished to enter. The apparent difference? No activists were being arraigned in that particular courtroom.
Coordinated or not, official policy or not, it would seem that the battle for access -- one which I'm sure has been waged by the IMC people for much longer than this site has existed -- is continuing all over Portland.
Where, exactly, are our compatriots in the "established" local media, who should be rising to our defense, supporting us before interfering authorities, and backing our right to be present at news-worthy events on the same terms which they themselves enjoy?
Rally around, media folk. Either you believe in freedom of the press, public access, and the right to know, or you don't. Now's the time to demonstrate where you stand.
For that matter, where is the ACLU, or even the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, when it comes to such matters? Actually here is a guide entitled, "Access to Places" that is maintained by the RCFP.
Update
Another IMC poster offers a descriptive chronology of events at the arraignments today, which would tend to contradict the previously-referenced report of access interference. This link is to the same post mentioned above; scroll down for the comment containing the relevant chronology.
Update
In case it wasn't clear, and it probably wasn't, the above update was meant to serve as a kind of editorial mea culpa. In the ongoing fever-dream of trying to elicit from the Mayor's communications director some sort of explanation for the events of March 27, I jumped the gun regarding the above Indymedia post. In the end, I am willing to bet that the descriptive chronology added by a later poster is probably a more accurate reflection of what transpired. In the midst of trying to convince others, in various circles, of the importance of No Presumptions as a sort of operating principle, I veered off that course with the item above.
At the same time, in keeping with editorial policy here, the post will not be deleted, merely explained via the Updates added later.