Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government User Journal News Your Rights Online

Interview With Jailed Video Blogger Josh Wolf 457

Posted by kdawson from the alarm-clock dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview With Jailed Video Blogger Josh Wolf More

Interview With Jailed Video Blogger Josh Wolf

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe... maybe not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HomelessInLaJolla ( 1026842 ) * <sab93badger@yahoo.com> on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:34PM (#17992046) Homepage Journal
    I don't think the fellow was jailed with "impunity". He disregarded a subpoena from a court. Be a good citizen. Show up to court when called. It's no different than standard etiquette and social grace. If you're invited to a large party of important people, even if you disagree with them, at least show up and have a few hors d'oevres.

    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).
    • Two words: Judith Miller

      If you and the judge disagree and you don't come around to the judge's point of view, you're going to jail.

      • Two words: Judith Miller

        If you and the judge disagree and you don't come around to the judge's point of view, you're going to jail.
        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.

        • Re:The fact that he's a blogger is beside the poin (Score:5, Informative)

          by grimwell ( 141031 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @06:55AM (#17995562)

          >> 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.

          Testimonial privileges require a court to weigh the government's evidence as to why they need her testimony. Yet Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison based exclusively upon written evidence from witnesses whose identities and testimony were kept secret from her and her lawyers. They were given no opportunity to defend her against, question, or rebut the secret evidence the courts relied upon exclusively in convicting her. Indeed, a full eight pages of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision discussing and analyzing this secret evidence was redacted from the published opinion.
          Source [reason.com]


          Some Follow-up [rcfp.org]

          Feb. 7, 2006 Significant sections of a previously redacted judicial opinion were released Friday after an appellate court ruled that certain information about grand jury testimony in the CIA leak investigation is no longer secret.

          Dow Jones Inc. had filed a motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to release eight redacted pages from Judge David S. Tatel's concurring opinion in a February 2005 court ruling that then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matt Cooper must testify before a grand jury that was investigating who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the press.

          Judge Tatel, in one of three concurring opinions written by the three-judge panel, found that there is a common law privilege but that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had overcome it. Tatel explained how Miller's testimony was critical to the investigation, how the grand jury had exhausted all other available resources, and that the public interest favored compelling her testimony. In doing so, eight pages of his decision were sealed from the public to preserve grand jury secrecy and to protect classified information.

          The same three judges replied to Dow Jones' motion Friday and allowed large sections of Tatel's decision to be released, stating, in a decision written by the court as a whole, "we are satisfied here that there is no longer any need to keep significant portions of the eight pages under seal. Libby's indictment, now part of the public record, reveals some grand jury matters, and we see little purpose in protecting the secrecy of grand jury proceedings that are no longer secret."


      • What I don't understand is that the article says he's imprisoned for "protecting a source" which is the situation in the Judith Miller case. But from reading the article.. they want the video to basically help identify people that might've broken the law. They aren't "sources", they're part of what was happening in public while he was filming. If there are more private interviews on there that he's hoping to keep out of the courts, you'd think he could give all the unedited footage filmed outside, but I don't see any talk of such.

        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.
    • I think the point is that the US govt now finds suspect any seemingly leftist cause, and he's just basically resisting tyranny. Also, he's not broke and underpriveleged, and such people tend not to receive the harshest punishments, so to him it's probably worth resisting.

    • Frightening reasons (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:21PM (#17992476) Homepage Journal
      If this were a state supoena investigating the attack on a police officer, I would agree that he should have showed up. If it were a genuine investigation of an inury offense, it would be carried out by state law enforcement and involve a state grand jury. The fact that it's a federal investigation by a terrorism task force investigating a civil demonstration - that is frightening. Eevn more frightening considering the stretch the government used to call it federal.

      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)

        by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @01:50AM (#17994098) Homepage
        Mod parent up! Virtually all of the slashdot posts seem to be ignoring the two main points made in the interview:
        1. This is not properly a federal matter, and there is no reason for a federal grand jury to be messing with it.
        2. The issue isn't the video. The issue is that they're trying to get him to name everyone in the video, so they can then subpoena those people and get them to name names, and so on.
        Plenty of people are saying he's an idiot for ignoring a federal subpoena. No, he knew exactly what he was doing. He just isn't willing to comply, and is willing to sit in jail for a year or two on the strength of his convictions. I wish more people had his courage; you don't have to agree with his political opinions to respect his moral strength. This guy has everything to lose and nothing to gain, and he's doing this as a matter of principle.

    • Re:Maybe... maybe not (Score:4, Insightful)

      by alshithead ( 981606 ) * on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:48PM (#17992772)
      In agreement, I have to say blogger=reporter!

      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.
    • >I don't think the fellow was jailed with "impunity".

      The government has not suffered any penalties for jailing him.

      >Disregarding a subpoena is a gesture of disrespect and impunity.

      The phrase "gesture ... of impunity" makes absolutely no sense.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tchdab1 ( 164848 )
      As far as disregarding a subpoena, the article describes that he is protected under California state law, but not under federal law.
      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

  • Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:34PM (#17992052) Homepage
    He has video of what are presumably illegal acts by anti-G8 demonstrators, which he refuses to turn over. Anybody - member of the old media or not - would be compelled to turn this over. And if they, the old media, don't have a right to withold evidence from a grand jury empaneled to investigate these crimes - why should he?

    • Re:Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HomelessInLaJolla ( 1026842 ) * <sab93badger@yahoo.com> on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:41PM (#17992122) Homepage Journal
      In all fairness he's asserted that he would be willing to turn the tape over to the presiding judge. It is the US attorney involved who has demanded that the tape be turned over to his office. I don't know the particulars of the subpoena but, afaik, a subpoena is issued from the court and not directly from the US attorney's office. The US attorney issues the subpoena through the court at which time the named party must show up at court to address the contents of the subpoena.

      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)

        by nomadic ( 141991 )
        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.

        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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        And this "blogger" may have filmed the commission of that crime.

        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.

  • Question. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:35PM (#17992054)
    Why do "Journalists" have the special right to not give up information to a corut demanding it?

    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.
    • From here [sfweekly.com]:

      Two weeks ago, Wolf's pro-bono lawyers argued a motion in federal court to quash the subpoena before Judge Maria-Elena James. They claimed that Wolf is protected by California's shield law, which allows journalists to maintain confidential unpublished information obtained during newsgathering. The law lets journalists cast a wide net in reporting, even though they may end up seeing or hearing actions that are illegal. Granting the government widespread power to request unused recordings, Wolf's la

  • huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TinBromide ( 921574 )
    obstruction of justice? Withholding evidence? So, because i have a blog, i can garner support in case i'm jailed for going against the orders of a grand jury? Sounds like someone read "journalist in jail" and read into it "Jailed for saying or posting something anti-government on a blog"

  • Whre is the issue here? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:39PM (#17992102)
    A grand jury or a court can order you to produce damned near anything it wants. Being a jouralist (or a blogger) is no shield, or haven't you kids been watching the Plamegate/Libby trial?

    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.
    • Can you try to be fair?

      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)

        by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
        > 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.

        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
        • If Josh is jailed because his attorney's argument is that the tape should be reviewed first by the judge before it goes to the US attorney then this is a decision made by his attorney and Josh is simply being a willing pawn. If this is the case then I fully support the legal argument.

          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

        • 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,


          Of course we do, it's called public opinion and it affects everything.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wall0159 ( 881759 )
      He's prepared to provide the evidence - but he's offered to provide it to the presiding judge, and not to the attorney general. I'm not knowledgable about the US court system, but if it's anything like the Australian system, then it would be the court that requests the video, not the A.G (can someone clarify this?).

      "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)

        by DeathToBill ( 601486 )
        > Well, it could be because journalism and a free press are one of the absolute
        > 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)

    by Bifurcati ( 699683 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:41PM (#17992120) Homepage
    Despite the scare mongering in TFA, the bottom line is he was subpoenaed for a video that might have been possible evidence in a (possible) serious crime. They're investigating a violent protest - a policeman (apparently) had his skull cracked, for goodness sake. I don't care how pure your protest motives are, that sort of thing is never appropriate. (Well, okay, maybe as an absolute last resort for overthrowing a government, but I don't think we're there yet.)

    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)

      by robbak ( 775424 )
      Well, the interview is with the person himself, so you can expect a bit of bias. He is not going to up and say "I am being totally foolish here, and am in gaol for my own ammusement", which seems like the situation from my angle.
      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)

        by JoshJ ( 1009085 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:51PM (#17992208) Journal

        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.


        Ah, the old "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.
        • Not necessarily - imagine if I accused you of taking drugs. You could prove me wrong by submitting to a drug test, but you refuse. Now it could be because you're standing up for your rights - you shouldn't have to have a test just because some crazed guy accuses you. But it's also possible you know what the results of that test will be, and it's going to make people even more suspicious when you refuse.

          Now, take this guy who appears to have nothing to lose personally by handing over the tape and, hones

      • 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)

      by PaulBu ( 473180 )
      They're investigating a violent protest - a policeman (apparently) had his skull cracked, for goodness sake. I don't care how pure your protest motives are, that sort of thing is never appropriate.

      As much as I disagree with the whole anti-globalization violent-protesting punks (not to be confused with level-headed anarchists like myself :-) ) -- why do you accept the notion that "policemen" have some special rights, while "journalists" do not? (Mind the quotes!). Either there is the same set of laws for all
      • I would give more rights to the police because they are charge with enforcing the law and protecting the peace. It doesn't always work that way and they sometimes voilate this presmise under color of law. When that happens, they need to be dealt with more sternly then an ordinary eyewitness.

        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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • You're probably exposing the reason why the US attorney wants the tape before the judge, or the grand jury, is allowed to see it. The US prosecutor wants to be able to show edited fragments of the tape. Josh and his attorney are hoping that, if they judge is allowed to see the tape first, that will prevent the US attorney from butchering the truth (as they usually do).

        You need to post that more.
      • Really good point, actually. Most likely (and I say this without a shred of evidence) the truth is somewhere inbetween - the officer probably acted rashly, and may or may not have fallen on the right side of the law.

        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)

          by HomelessInLaJolla ( 1026842 ) * <sab93badger@yahoo.com> on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:25PM (#17992522) Homepage Journal
          The point being that, if the situation has come this far, the US attorney will have filed a motion making it illegal for any of the tape to be published for many years. Nobody will ever see the truth until after this story is long forgotten (as is usual in today's police state).

          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)

        by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 )

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The "crime" that is under investigation by the grand jury is a broken taillight on a police car. They blew it up into a "Federal Charge" because some of the money for that vehicle came from Federal Funds. I've never heard about any police getting a broken skull, but certainly police have been known to do such things to citizens without any legal recourse.

      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)

      by drix ( 4602 )
      Well, the subpoena was sort of a formality. If he showed up they would have simply tossed him in jail when he refused to identify his sources.

      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)

      by MojoRilla ( 591502 )

      They're investigating a violent protest - a policeman (apparently) had his skull cracked, for goodness sake.

      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

  • Try 18 months (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:44PM (#17992146) Journal
    170 days may be a record for jounalist but others have been simularly held for longer and under worse conditions. Susan McDougal apwnt 18 months jailed with 7 weeks of that time in solitare confinment for not turning evidence over to the white water investigators. She claimed something even more compelling then a brief association with the press under an emerging form or journalism. She claimed it would incriminate her and refused based on directly worded constitutional rights- not an interpretation someone could change if neccesary.

    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)

      by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
      > She claimed it would incriminate her and refused based on directly worded constitutional rights-
      > 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
      • Yep, and there was reason to fear dieing too. Those reasons may not have been justified but they were there. There was a list of people who supposedly died from mysterious (other then natural causes) reasons that had conections to the clintons.

        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)

    by CPE1704TKS ( 995414 )
    He's protecting a crime. This isn't something like a whistleblower where revealing the source could cause more harm than good. He is refusing to turn over a tape that could have evidence of a crime, ie. a police officer's head was fractured. It seems like a clearcut good use of contempt of court, in my opinion.

    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)

      by HomelessInLaJolla ( 1026842 ) <sab93badger@yahoo.com> on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:55PM (#17992254) Homepage Journal
      Josh has not refused to turn over the tape. Josh has demonstrated a citizen's concern over whom the tape be turned over to. Think rationally: Why is it so darned important for the US attorney to have the tape? What's wrong with allowing the judge to review it and then let the judge decide who gets it?
      • Because the judge isn't a grand jurry. And they are supposed to be who is bringing your warrent about. If the tape in it's entirity shows something that pieces don't, this won't happen. Also, If the judge doesn't think something is evidence but later turns out to be, then it doesn't get to be used as evidence. This is a proceedure that is supposed to happen after the case has begun.

        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)

          by HomelessInLaJolla ( 1026842 ) *
          I think the judge should definitely be the one to make these decisions. If there were instances of abuse of power, use of excessive force, or police brutality which instigated or escalated the situation then there is no way that the US attorney should be allowed priveleged access to the tape. If the US attorney is allowed priveleged access to the tape, especially if he sees the grand jury first, he could use select segments to viciously sway their opinions. Indeed it's very likely that, along with the su

  • eyes and ears (Score:3, Interesting)

    by untorqued ( 957628 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:00PM (#17992294)
    I think Josh Wolf's refusal to testify is important for a couple reasons: 1) You wouldn't know it from mainstream media these days, but journalists have the opportunity to be important counterbalances to unchecked government power via investigating and bringing otherwise obscure activities into the light for public discussion and, perhaps, correction. 2) One important tool in a journalist's arsenal that enables them to do the above is their ability to collect news without being seen as tools/agents of the government. Think of Bob Woodward and Deep Throat (aka Mark Felt) - Woodward went 3 decades refusing to name Felt because he'd promised him confidentiality. If journalists can be compelled to testify about what they've done and seen in the course of doing their jobs, people around them are less likely to be interested in being filmed, interviewed, etc. This is the reason many states have shield laws, which protect journalists' sources and unpublished work. The US attorney in Josh Wolf's case had to go through acrobatics to bring this case in federal court, because California has a shield law - the only reason it's in federal court is because a San Francisco police car that sustained a broken taillight during the protest in question was paid for partially by federal money - that's the only federal link here!
    • > One important tool in a journalist's arsenal that enables them to do the above is their ability
      > 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
  • If a man can claim with impunity that most blogs constitute some form of journalism, then this does not bode well for the future of citizen journalism.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:21PM (#17992466)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by phoebusQ ( 539940 )
      He's making "the tough call"? Which tough call is that, the one to stand in the way of justice? It's one thing for a journalist to protect his sources, but it's something else entirely to stand in the way of orderly legal proceedings due to some misguided sense of journalistic ethics. First, this guy's "journalist" status is tenuous at best. Second, he's not protecting a source in the traditional sense, but is just being obstructionist and protecting the perpetrators of a serious violent crime. We shou

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shihar ( 153932 )
      Everyone is 'dissing' this guy because he video taped a crime and then refused to turn over the evidence. If you are standing on the street and someone comes up and cracks you in the skull while another person video tapes, that person can't refuse to turn over the tape. The government damn well has every single right to go take that tape and use it as evidence. There is nothing in the constitution (or the law) that states "you only have to turn over evidence of a crime if you feel like it". This guy vid
    • I'm also surprised at the reaction of slashdotters. I think protecting confidential sources of journalists could be important to maintaining freedom. However this guy is protecting a video taken in the middle of the street in a major city. His sources couldn't have had any expectation of confidentiality.
  • Josh Wolf, in doing what he can to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, is a hero.

    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)

    by 80 85 83 83 89 33 ( 819873 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:38PM (#17993188) Journal

    ...it does not bode well for the future of citizen journalism.


    pretty much nothing ever posted in YRO bodes well for the future of anything.

  • Simple..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IHC Navistar ( 967161 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @05:28AM (#17995144)
    #1 - Someone who observes a crime = Witness
    #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

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close