FBI and Pennsylvania State Police employ tactics that would make Iranian authorities proud——and apparently the New York Times.

According to a New York Times article Sunday, October 4, 2009, titled, “Arrest Puts Focus on Protesters’ Texting” Elliot Madison, 41 a social worker from Jackson Heights, Queens was arrested September 24, 2009 by the Pennsylvania State Police and charged with hindering apprehension of prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possession of instruments of crime. The article also reports that the FBI conducted a 16-hour raid of Madison’s residence in Jackson Heights, Queens the following Thursday.
The article reports that a “criminal complaint in Pennsylvania”, claims that Madison was, “directing others, specifically protesters of the G-20 summit, in order to avoid apprehension after a lawful order to disperse.” Here the article takes law-enforcement at their word. They do not dispute what law enforcement is claiming to be a “lawful order to disperse”. The First Amendment grants every American the right to “peaceably assemble”. So the police only have the authority to disperse the protesters that are not being peaceable if and when they are not. But the charges against Madison take an even stranger turn.
During an interview on Democracy Now with Madison and his attorney, Martin Stolar, Tuesday, October 6, 2009, Stolar claims that the police are charging Madison with “hindering apprehension of prosecution” because Madison repeated the Police’s dispersal order over Twitter. If what Stolar claims is true, the police are charging that it is a crime to repeat a dispersal order through social-networking websites and mobile-phones (in this case Twitter) to individuals that the dispersal order is intended. These details, along with others, are not only left out of the article but are completely contrary to what the article is describing since the Times reporters didn’t bother trying to get a comment from Madison, his attorney or the Tin Can Collective, nor did they run any further information in Wednesday’s edition after the interview with Democracy Now.
As a matter of fact, the article mentions that the affidavit used to secure the search warrant for Madison’s residence may have something to do with Madison’s affiliation with a group (the Tin Can Collective) that according to the Times article, “collected information and used Twitter to send mass text messages describing protest-related events that they observed on the streets.” The Times Writers then point out that, “There were many such events during the two days of the summit. Demonstrators marched through town on the opening day of the gathering, at times breaking windows and fleeing.” The Times article really reaches to show their readers how Madison could be guilty of associating with a group that coordinates events with protesters who are at the same place where there are other criminal activities, and they leave out any comment from Madison, his attorney, anyone at the Tin Can Collective and they omit any follow up information after the Democracy Now interview.
The reporters for this story are really reaching to convince their readers that Madison and the collective he’s associated with are guilty of something.
The New York Times chose to run this article by piecing together a far reaching accusation instead of obtaining comment from some of the parties involved.
This perspective is a stark contrast from the series of articles that The New York Times ran last June when the Iranian Government used similar tactics towards Iranian protesters after their national election. Then, Iranian authorities accused many of the protesters of being foreign infiltrators in order to justify their crack down, and showed televised confessions that were likely forced because of the absurdity of the claims made during the confessions. The New York Times showed its unwavering support for the protesters and condemned the state of Iran. In one article, the Times even explained how their readers can support the protesters through social-networking sites—just as Madison had in Pittsburg. A June 15, 2009 New York Times article read,
Twitter-users are posting messages, known as tweets, with the term #IranElection, which allows users to search for all tweets on the subject. On Monday evening, Twitter was registering about 30 new posts a minute with that tag.
One read, “We have no national press coverage in Iran, everyone should help spread Moussavi’s message. One Person = One Broadcaster. #IranElection.”
“#IranElection” is a method for Twitter users to communicate directly with protesters.
And in a June 22, 2009 article titled, “Web Pries Lid of Iranian Censorship”, The Times condemned the Iranian government as “authoritarian”, partly for their censorship of social networking sites used by Iranian protesters and their online supporters.
In June, The Times played its role as a competent critic of state power, Iranian state power. It even went beyond its role by aiding the Iranian protesters. But when the opportunity for the Times to fill that role presented itself this past week we saw a different paper, one that is only willing to fill its pages with acceptable state doctrine.