Interview With Jailed Video Blogger Josh Wolf 457
Video blogger and independent journalist Josh Wolf has been in a federal jail for 170 days for refusing to turn over to a federal grand jury a video of a San Francisco demonstration. On Feb. 6 Wolf's length of incarceration set a new record for US journalism. "Democracy Now!" has an interview with Josh Wolf from his jail cell. If federal authorities can jail bloggers with impunity, it does not bode well for the future of citizen journalism.
Maybe... maybe not (Score:5, Interesting)
With respect to the tape I think that Josh has a positive mindset: let the judge review the tape. I'll grant that it is probably the US attorney who's being the idiot in this regard.
With respect to the testimoney I think that Josh has a negative mindset: as with the subpoena, show up to court. There are a million different ways of saying "I cannot be positive beyond a reasonable doubt. My religion prevents me from bearing false witness." Something along those lines. Again, if the US attorney weren't being the idiot with respect to allowing the judge to do his job and make the call on whether or not to include the tape, then this probably wouldn't be an issue.
I think that, as usual, the US attorney is being a knob because he can--because his social connections and political backing give him power over a standard citizen. At the same time: Hey, Josh! When a federal court sends you a subpoena that means "Show up or else!"
Disregarding a subpoena is a gesture of disrespect and impunity. Jailing a citizen for disregarding a subpoena is just standard procedure (afaik).
The fact that he's a blogger is beside the point (Score:4, Insightful)
If you and the judge disagree and you don't come around to the judge's point of view, you're going to jail.
Re:The fact that he's a blogger is beside the poin (Score:3, Insightful)
If you and the judge disagree and you don't come around to the judge's point of view, you're going to jail.
Re:The fact that he's a blogger is beside the poin (Score:5, Informative)
>> Two words: Judith Miller
>>
>
>well.... yeah.... same situation, basically. Like the OP says: when the judge says
>"show up and testify", you show up and testify. Refusing to show up gets you jail
>time.
Not even close!
Judith Miler is unique, the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read.
Some Follow-up [rcfp.org]
Re:The fact that he's a blogger is beside the poin (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems more like a situation like a news crew doing a story and an accident happening behind them, then refusing to turn over that tape to help prove who (if anyone) was at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Frightening reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
What he is fighting for is to change exactly the sort of mentality people have that says when the government comes calling, the automatic answer is to give them what they want.
I thank God daily that I am not American. Please understand, I don't intend to bash Americans, but I am scared to death of the police state that is forming. Gitmo makes the Japanese internment camps of WWII look like quilting bees. It frightens me so much that I'd even move out of Canada just to get further away from that, except for people like Josh Wolf. He's being asked for the wrong information by the wrong authorities and he's standing up and saying no, this isn't right. People like him are the only thing that gives me any hope that maybe Canada can win the fight to keep this from spreading North.
Re:Frightening reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Frightening reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's address your "anarchist retards" who were "breaking shit". If the investigation was really into people who were "breaking shit", it would be carried out by state law enforcement. A federal government anti-terrorism task force is claiming federal laws were broken because they give extra grants to police for anti-terrorism training, which makes the potential damage of a police cruiser a federal jurisdiction matter. The jailed journalist offered the requested information for an in camera (private) review by the judge to determine if it merited turning over as evidence of the alleged crimes. I can't think anywhere (else) in the world where this wouldn't be good enough.
The United States is only the "most free nation on earth" on paper. The constitution is, unfortunately, vague and in areas where it does speak, the government is taking pains to erode it further. Let me give an example: habeas corpus. The constitution says that habeas corpus can only be suspended at time of war. Right now, the United States federal government is alleging that because the constitution doesn't explicitely say that habeas corpus is a right the rest of the time, that it isn't.
Yes, that is the boogeyman. This keeps me awake at nights precisely because I do worry about losing rights in my own borders. Canada is under enormous pressure to cave into things like DMCA. Yes, let's in one law criminalize law using technical means to protect the fair use that another law expressly allows. I've published articles on how to rip and transcode DVD's onto Pocket PCs, and host the software for doing that. If I own a DVD, that is perfectly legal in Canada, yet if I travel to the United States, I can get arrested for making software to let me watch the video from my own DVD on a different device. You call that the most free nation on earth? Don't even get me started on the Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution
doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when
the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a
prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.
Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,
stammering.
"Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution s
Re:Frightening reasons (Score:5, Informative)
The US is currently ranked 53rd in the world for Freedom of the Press. Mozambique rates higher than the US. Source [rsf.org]
The US was tied with Greece for 31st in 2003. Source [rsf.org]
It could be said the US people are also too afraid of the terrorist boogyman [slashdot.org] to give a shit about losing their rights.
And Canadians aren't the only ones uneasy with the US.
MUNICH, Feb. 10 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin, in some of his harshest criticism of the United States since he took office seven years ago, said Saturday that Washington's unilateral, militaristic approach had made the world a more dangerous place than at any time during the Cold War. Source [washingtonpost.com]
Happens [cnn.com] in the US [findlaw.com], too.
People lacking tolerance tend to want to silence their critics and views they disagree with or don't understand. It just happens to be easier to do if you're in a position of power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe... maybe not (Score:4, Insightful)
If you put yourself out there as a reporter of news, even with providing your own opinion/slant, you take the same risks as a reporter.
If you write an opinion or editorial piece and REPORT news in some way that is of interest to the justice system, the justice system has the right to ask more details of you in the course of the investigation of a crime. You as a (US) citizen can tell them what they want to know as a tool for their investigation or tell them to fuck off. Reporters have faced this issue for a long time. Just because you label yourself as a "blogger" instead of a reporter does not exclude you from a court order demanding your source. The choice is upon the individual. If I video a crime in front of my house and report it in any kind of mass media, I fully expect the cops to want all information I can provide in the pursuit of their investigation and for them to get a court order requiring me to provide that information. I can give them what they want or face a contempt of court charge for not supplying what the court ordered.
Re: (Score:2)
The government has not suffered any penalties for jailing him.
>Disregarding a subpoena is a gesture of disrespect and impunity.
The phrase "gesture
Re: (Score:2)
The protest issues involve SF city police, which would cover him under CA state law.
But he's being prosecuted by the feds, with the justification that since SF gets federal money to help pay for police material, the feds have an interest in the proceedings.
The journalist contends that they are using their position to stifle his speech since his reports are critical of authoriti
*choke* (Score:3, Insightful)
In reality? It's just like the court told Saddam when he asserted (correctly) that they had no true authority over him as the UN didn't sanction the US to remove a government. We were allowed in Iraq un
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh?!?? If you want to be pedantic about the legality, Saddam had agreed to several provisions when he signed the armistice to end the first gulf war. If he failed to comply, the war was "back on". He failed to comply with the big one - prove that he had gotten rid of all weapons of mass destruction that had been identified, documented
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need UN sanction to remove a government. Look at Bosnia circa 1998.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:*choke* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:*choke* (Score:4, Interesting)
It's hard to argue that the US is economically broken, but socially we're just as fucked as every other society.
Stories like this are less about being allowed to live what has become the American dream (having a lot of stuff defining your success) and more about reclaiming what use to be the American dream (total freedom from over zealous rulers, economically and socially.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but at the moment your socially more fucked up than most western societies.
What makes the US especially fucked up is not the high rate of criminality, the low rate of social mobility (lower than India as somebody pointed up above) or the amount of inequality. What really makes the US fucked up is the number of ignorant, brainwashed americans that blindly believe (not to mention spew up that
Re:*choke* (Score:4, Funny)
If you've never been to any other country, how do you know the one you're in is the greatest? Other countries could be giving shit away every day! Canada is one of those countries. You know what they give away? HEALTH INSURANCE!!!
How do you think the rest of the world feels about us constantly claiming we're the best? It'd be like if every day you went to work, someone there shouted, "I'm the best sunuvabitch in here, and the rests of you sniveling shits would DIE without me! MUAHAHAHA!!!" I can guarantee you that if you had that happen to you every day, by the end of the week you would have killed him. And eaten him, just to try to possess his power.
Re:*choke* (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Bush changed the rules for counting the unemployed. 2. Many people are either limited to part-time, or have had to settle for a "job" at Walmart, or both.
"Gasoline is nearly back to $2 a gallon."
Still a bunch higher than when Bush took office. Big surprise that an oilman in the oval office led to higher prices.
"Home ownership is among the highest (possibly THE highest) in the entire world."
Yeah, and too many people are upside-down on their mortgages. Get ready for the next S&L bailout.
"Americans can go to school, work hard, become successful, more readily than anywhere else in the world."
That was true once. I don't believe it any more.
"My god people...what the fuck do you want?"
Government accountability, to the people, not to the corporation. The bastards in Washington are destroying this country.
"These people don't want everyone to be happy...they want everyone to be equally miserable. Worthless turds."
Either you've been duped and you don't even know it or, more likely, you're just an anonymous troll.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A job at Walmart in America leaves you better off than most jobs in many countries. Even the poorest in America enjoy a very high standard of living.
Yeah, it doesn't matter if we go backwards, as long as we have a slightly higher level of wealth than Somalia, we're doing great!
Can you say 'hyperbole'? America has never been better off. Ever.
CHOKE. We are living off debt, engaging in ridiculous wars, have lost any kind of real value to life apart from money, are dying from pollution and junk food, we are losing our cultural and intellectual leadership, and you think we have never been better? That's some serious crack-addicted nonsense right there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, but you probably know what I mean,
and if you don't, google the above phrase.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For dismally paying part-time crappy service jobs...
Thanks to aggressive imperialistic foreign policies that piss-off the rest of the planet against 'mericans.
With a record number of people squeezed tight by the balls by the banks, living paycheque to paycheque, trying to make
Re:*choke* (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, one has to wonder about the sustainability of american consumer spending (considering the average american spends 101% of what they earn) and incredible trade deficits. Interest rates have got to adjust at some point... and as goes capital so goes labor.
Re:*choke* (Score:5, Interesting)
That is what the numbers say. But it's not reflective of the actual situation. Most measures of unemployment only consider people who are considered "part of the workforce", and actively trying to find a job. Those same measures tend to define somebody who has "left the workforce" as a person who has not worked in three to six months, even if they are actively searching for a job.
Thus in many regions, especially in the Rust Belt (which has been hit hardest by the moving of manufacturing overseas), the official unemployment rate is quite misleading. In such regions it's quite common for people to not find work for a year or more. And so they're officially considered to have left the workforce, and thus are not counted in the unemployment statistics. While you may have 50% of the workforce without jobs in such areas, an unemployment rate of only 4% to 6% is commonly given, as that's the number of people who are either just getting into the workforce (ie. high school graduates), or who have been laid off in less than six months.
Gasoline is nearly back to $2 a gallon.
In Texas, perhaps. But not in the rest of the country. I drove from NYC to Detroit and back a week ago. Gas prices ranged from $3.25 a gallon in Michigan to as high as $4.50/gallon in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think the lowest I saw was about $2.75, and that was near Detroit.
Home ownership is among the highest (possibly THE highest) in the entire world.
America has experienced a housing bubble over the past decade. Yes, many new houses have been built, and many people have begun living in them. But those people don't actually own their homes. Many such buyers have had to take on a 35 to 40 year mortgage. Some are even at the point where they have to go into massive credit card debt to cover their non-mortgage living expenses. Just because lending institutions have been very willing to give out mortgages recently it does not mean that a larger portion of the population are actually home owners. There only ownership in such a situation is that of a bank or other financial institution owning large amounts of homebuyer debt.
Americans can go to school, work hard, become successful, more readily than anywhere else in the world.
That's not really the case. Higher education is far too expensive for most Americans. Coming out of a 4-year college program with $160,000 in debt, even after scholarships and bursaries, tends to put people in a pretty terrible position. Compare that to places like Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and even Russia. Students coming out of universities in those countries are just as capable as American graduates, but face nowhere near the financial burden (both before attending and after).
My god people...what the fuck do you want?
I think they may want people like you to take a look at the facts. Yes, CNN and FOX News will tell you again and again that the economy is doing great, unemployment is low, and every other country is a shithole compared to the US. But that just isn't the case. It's not reality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What?!? Did you deliberately look for the crappy little station that had outrageous pricing or something, or always wait until you were in the middle of bum-f@#$ nowhere where there was only 1 station for miles? California is alm
Re: (Score:2)
Err...Good luck with that. You can see what happens to anyone who disagrees with the U.S., just ask the Iraqis--better yet, ask the Japanese.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a consequence of all this professionalism there are over 600,000 people dead and lots more injured.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Start here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Despite what you may think, your statement above isn't one of disagreeance, it's of invalidation; which is to say you're not indicating that you recognize their positi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A group of people got together and organized a protest in support of anarchy?
Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's probably a whole slew of legal mumbo-jumbo going on in the background. If Josh didn't retain the services of an attorney prior to the date named on the subpoena, or if he flat out didn't appear on the date of the subpoena, then he's probably screwed.
I could be totally wrong. Maybe a subpoena is a direct request from the US attorney which bypasses the judge and the court altogether. I doubt it though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't practice in that jurisdiction, and I don't practice criminal law, but I know around here attorneys can issue subpoenas on their own. The judge has ultimate authority though, so you can move for a protective order if you object to the subpoena.
The US attorney is gathering evidence of a crime (Score:2, Insightful)
The prosecutor (the US attorney) wants that film so he can take it to a grand jury to maybe indict those that committed that crime.
By withholding that evidence, this "blogger" is in fact obstructing justice.
Re:The US attorney is gathering evidence of a crim (Score:2)
Question. (Score:3, Interesting)
I would understand if it was about him, you know, fifth amendment and all.
But does he have some special credential that signifies him a journalist and immune from the eyes of the court? For that matter, is there any laws that discern high-profile journalists? If there are state laws, why are there?
I'm just questioning the reasoning behind different "class" of citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides who the bonafide members are? They arent elected, and there is no exemption in the law for "shielding" anybody. Even the president isnt immune from being forced to give up testimony and/or evidence to a grand jury. However, arguments made in a grand jury are secret, as illegal evidence can come out (eg: they can ignore warrants, but they lose it in a public trial). Even the Abraham Linco
Re:Question. (Score:4, Informative)
He did not grant the request of the subpoena.
According to Amendment 5, Bill of Rights, it says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Due process was made, and he has temporally lost his liberty by being put in jail until he grants the subpoena.
This is how courts should be ran. There's nothing unfair, or evil about this situation.
Debate strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Josh and his attorney want the tape to be shown to the judge first presumably so that the judge can see the _entire_ situation. The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
It's very likely that the tape contains evidence which would show an escalation of events--unnecessary force or police brutality which initiated the subsequent violence. The US attorney, of course, would only show the subsequent violence.
Duh.
defense would have access to the tape... (Score:2)
Re:Debate strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically, it has not been established that mere attendance at the protest constituted a crime, so the US attorney is not entitled to information about who was there.
huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whre is the issue here? (Score:5, Interesting)
And this is a good thing. You can't have justice without first establishing the truth and for that you have to be able to present ALL of the evidence. I really can't see why journalists think they are some sort of fscking priesthood set above all other instituitions. Get over yourselves, you are mostly talentless hacks anyway.
This idiot was issued an order to produce evidence, he refused and his butt is in jail. And that is exactly where he belongs, for his refusal to comply with one of the most basic responsibilities attached to citizenship.
Be fair (Score:2)
Well, my response is that we've offered to turn the video over to the judge to review in camera to determine whether or not there is any evidence on the tape. The US Attorney's office has said that that would not be appropriate, because there's certain information that only the grand jury is privy to. I don't understand why the grand jury information can't be then passed on to the judge, who can balance all these factors and determine whether or not there is any evidence on the tape, which I contend to this day there isn't, because all newsworthy material on the video was put out online the night of the incident, because I had no idea this was going to all bubble up when I was shooting the video that night and editing it down later on
Apparently there's a disconnect between Josh's attorney, the judge, and the US attorney. I don't see anything unreasonable in the above text.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> anything unreasonable in the above text.
But YOU (nor I for that matter) weren't appointed to the Federal Bench. We don't decide what is the 'reasonable' way to deal with evidence, and neither does this Josh character. The Judge bangs his gavel and you either obey, appeal or suffer the consequences, any other result means no more Courts and anarchy reigns. Which is of course what most of the G8 pr
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason why evidence should be turned over to the opposition without first being presented to and reviewed by the judge.
Nobody gives the secret weapon to the other side without allowing the mediator to inspect it fi
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we do, it's called public opinion and it affects everything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> share that information (ie leak it), you have to have protections against revealing their identities, otherwise
> they'll stay buried and you'd never know that Nixon was breaking into Democratic offices AND undermining the
> judicial process to his heart's content (for example).
No. Someone in the Nixon administration should have had the balls to break that one in public. Or find a jour
Re: (Score:2)
In 1972 in the case of Branzburg v. Hayes, SCOTUS ruled that the first ammendment didn't grant absolute protection against subpoena, but asserted that "the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest" in order to compell divulgence of a source.
However, that's not at all what's at issue here. Josh isn't in jail because he's protecting a source. He was filming events that were transpiring in the public vie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I really can't see why journalists think they are some sort of fscking priesthood set above all other instituitions."
Well, it could be because journalism and a free press are one of the ab
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> keystones of a democracy, without which we'll quickly lapse into totalitarianism.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to avoid self-incrimination are the relevant cornerstones of democracy here.
Journalists wish that freedom of speech could be interpreted as the freedom of journalists to do whatever they want, but journalists are subject to the law just like the rest of us.
Here's
Honestly (Score:5, Informative)
If you refuse a legal subpoena then you go to jail. It's got nothing to independent journalism or even protecting his sources - at this level of the game, they want to see the tape. Maybe he'll be interviewed for information about the people on the tape at a later date, but that's not the issue here. Go to jail for (in some weird sense) "protecting your sources", not for witholding evidence, if you want to make a statement.
This feels like seriously biased reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason for his refusal (that I can see) is that it may show some illegal or unethical behavour on his part - In which case, he deserves all he gets.
Re:Honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the old "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, take this guy who appears to have nothing to lose personally by handing over the tape and, hones
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason for his refusal (that I can see) is that it may show some illegal or unethical behavour on his part - In which case, he deserves all he gets.
Then I guess you're a fool. He's willing to hand the tape over to the judge, just not the prosecution's office.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I disagree with the whole anti-globalization violent-protesting punks (not to be confused with level-headed anarchists like myself
Re: (Score:2)
This idea of protecting the police more then citizens isn't new. In most states killing a "police animal" (drug dog, horse..) can get you the death penalty were simple killing a citizen might not. Even striking an office
One URL... :-) (Score:2)
I agree with both of your other points though -- yes, I think that a judge signing for a punishment for someone later found innocent should be subject to the same punishment for that; and do not get me started on the whole "hate crime" idea!
Paul B.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've got it! (Score:2)
You need to post that more.
Re: (Score:2)
But all the more reason for this tape to get out there. And although another sibling claimed the prosecutors want to edit it maliciously, wouldn't it then make a great story when he sent the full, unedited video to the television media? (Or - post it on his blog!!!)
Re:Honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
The more I think about it the more this sounds like attorneys playing chess with Josh as the pawn. The more I see it in that light the more I agree: The prosecuting attorney, in no way, should be granted exclusive access to the tape nor should he be allowed to show it in anything but its entirety.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I mean how would you feel about the cop beating down Rodney King getting his ass kicked, on the spot, for his crime?
What crime? Beating down a drug crazed lunatic is a public service.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, we're talking a journalist (blogger or not - "mainstream" media paid him for this reporting) jailed for about half a year so far because he still is fo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This case has a long and storied history but basically it's part of an emerging pattern by the US DOJ of eliminating confidentiality for journalism sources. Say what you will about whether journalists have a legal privilege to protect sources or not, the fact remains that this is a deliberate break from 35 years of tradition dating back to (and this is not a coinciden
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The police have a long history of abusing protesters. The Republican National Convention in 2004 [wikipedia.org] is a recent example that comes to mind. Police arresting people on trumped up charges and detaining them in unsanitary conditions for excessive amounts of time.
It is hard to tell what the true details of this case are. Certainly, hitting a policeman over the head is unfortunate. But forcefully cuff
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try 18 months (Score:4, Insightful)
It should have been stopped then but it wasn't. Now we have this and we are still seeing it happen. I'm not sure how long before we see shooting someone on a mountain top because of rules of engagment or maybe gass and burn down a building full of women and children again. 170 days seems like it is small compared to others. He could be there a while longer just to match recent simular cases of this happening. I wonder how long he will hold out?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> not an interpretation someone could change if neccesary.
Yea, but the prosecuters have found a 100% legal way around Amendment #5. Use immunity. Because they didn't really want Susan, they wanted the Clintons. So they offered her use immunity and she still refused, then they could toss her in the joint for contempt. But while the special prosecuter could jail her for a bit, the Clintons could have he
Re: (Score:2)
Her husband died in jail after he talked. There were all kinds of rumors about some drug the KGB usedto specialize in that would induce a heart attack and the only way to find it in a tox screening would be to test specificly for it. My understanding is that people re
No sympathy (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting he refers to Greg Anderson, from the Balco case, who is also in prison for not testifying about whether or not Barry Bonds took steroids. I'm surprised that the author didn't say that
Not correct (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds good, but the judge just isn't the one who is supposed to make these decisions at this point in time. I'm wondering w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of questionable grounds... (Score:3, Interesting)
eyes and ears (Score:3, Interesting)
No Press Shield in US Constituition (Score:2)
> to collect news without being seen as tools/agents of the government.
Requiring a journalist to testify in a trial doesn't make the a tool of the State, it just makes them American Citizens. Of course most mainstream journalists would reject that label, preferring to think of themselves as Priests belonging in a class above mere nation states.
I know you probably went to a government school and didn't rec
The future of journalism (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Public video not protecting confidential source (Score:2)
A Great Act (Score:2)
More people must stand up for what they believe in. So far, we've got Josh and Lt. Watada. Who's next?
YRO should be renamed URF (you are fucked) (Score:3, Funny)
pretty much nothing ever posted in YRO bodes well for the future of anything.
Simple..... (Score:3, Insightful)
#1 - Videotape = Evidence.
#2 - Videotape in his possesion = Evidence in his possession.
#3 - Subpoena = Court Order
#4 - Disregarding Court Order = Contempt Of Court.
#5 - Contempt Of Court = Jail/The Big House/The Can/ The Clink/Up State/Up The River/The Pen/All-expenses paid vacation at the Fed Hotel
Add all the points together and you get:
(Jail) for (contempt of court) by (refusing a court order) to turn over (evidence of a crime) that (is in his possession) that (he witnessed).
What's so hard to figure out? The guy had evidence of a possible crime by either the police or protesters. Technically, he has evidence of a possible crime that the Feds want to investigate, like any law enforcement agency should be doing.
So what. Journalists are not above the law, and certainly not above the law when it comes to witholding evidence. He deserves to be in prison just as much as anybody else who 1) withold evidence of a crime from Authorites, and 2) Refuses to comply with the law.
He is in jail for violating the law. A violation of journalistic ethics? Pfff. Unfortunately for him, 'Journalistic Ethics' is NOT the law and does not dictate such. Freedom of the press means you can print whatever you want as long it is consistent with free speech and does not violate the law (You can't incite riots, print slanderous articles, or print nudity in a newspaper, etc.). He is not publishing anything - that is not the issue. He can publish whatever he wants.....nobody is arguaing against that and that is not why he is being jailed. It has NOTHING to do with publishing. The issue is that he is in possesion of a videotape that may contain evidence of the commission of crimes. Therefore, the judge has every right and obligtion, both ethically and legally, to force Mr. Wolf to turn over the videotape in question. And, by refusing to obey the order, Mr. Wolf he BROKE THE LAW.
So what the hell is he complaining about? It was completely his choice. 'Journalists Ethics' - Pfff. Is it ethical for a journalist to refuse to turn over evidence of a crime? Nope. Is it ethical for a judge to tell him to turn over the tape to the police for investigation of a crime? Yes. The government is trying to do its job the way it should be. It is being responsible. The police are trying to do their job. They are being responsible. The Feds are trying to do their job. Mr. Wolf is not doing his job by refusing the court order. His job is a journalist, and refusing to comply with the law is not a demonstration of 'Journalistic Ethics'. I don't think that selectively complying with the law to suit your beliefs is a demonstration of 'Journalistic Ethics', and I'm pretty sure it violates it. Ask Mr. Wolf if witholding evidence, contempt of court, obstruction of justice, and hindering an investigation are part of 'Journalistic Ethics'. Also, ask him if it is 'Journalistically Ethical' to selectively comply with the law.
He says that it is a violation of the Freedom Of The Press, yet he is violating the law by witholding evidence. Well, he is not publishing anything. He is witholding evidence. Since this isn't about something he published, it's not a violation of press freedom. He is the only one breaking the law. The Feds made the proper request, and a judge found that the request was legitimate and founded, and therefore signed it, and issued the supoena for the evidence. Unless there is a paperwork or procedural error, then he has no right to complain for being punished for not complying with the law. This isn't a case of the "Government is out to silence dissent and eliminate press freedom.". If it was, then we would all be in jail and not speaking freely in the papers or on the Internet. The vst majority of journalists comply with the law, yet *DON'T* wind up in prison. Hmmmmm.....
Lets give an analogy: You are at a protest. I beat you up. Someone videotapes the entire scene - protest and beating. The person videotapig it then sells footage of the pro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Tell that to Judith Miller [wikipedia.org], who was threatened with c
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From his jail cell?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they are. A primary function of the courts is to interpret the law. In other words, the law says X, the person did A as established by the evidence at hand, does A actually fit X or not? Since laws are written in human language they are ambiguous and it's the job of the courts to figure out if the actual situation fits the law or not.
A grand jury [wikipedia.org], part of the court system, exists solely to gather evidence and determine if it was likely that a crime was committed.
You seem to be under the impression that in a trial the facts of the crime are fixed and the only question is the identity of the criminal. This is not how the system actually works.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, the courts aren't meant to go, "I have no idea if there's a crime here or not, let's look at the evidence and see." They are meant to resolve the issue, "I believe the very specific crime X was committed. Here's my evidence."
A grand jury, part of the court system, exists solely to gather evidence and determine if it was likely that a crime was committed.
THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Grand juries are not tools for finding evidence (not to say they aren't used that way), but for determining whether there is sufficient evidence t