Slashdot Mirror
Blogging All the Way to Jail
Glyn writes "Time magazine is reporting on Josh Wolf the 'first blogger to be targeted by federal authorities for not cooperating with a grand jury.' Josh would have normally been protected from government coercion by California state shield laws but the prosecutors have argued its a federal matter, using quite shaky logic. Josh's blog is being updated by his mother, providing updates on what is happening. From the article: '"Not only does this logic seem silly," Wolf told TIME in June after receiving his final subpoena, "but if unchallenged it will have a deleterious effect on the state protections afforded to many journalists, both independent and those that are part of the established media." Judge William Alsup of Federal District Court rejected Wolf's arguments, and declared him in contempt of court. So he is now being held in a detention center in Dublin, Calif, where he could remain until next July.'"
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
"The feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the police car is partly U.S. government property since the S.F.P.D. receives federal anti-terrorism money."
This is like saying that since I am an American citizen, that there is some portion of the collective
"Amreican Dream/Resources" that is owned by ME, and I have the say , to be able to stop the government
from drilling in Alaska or anywhere, and selling MY portion of the public reosurces to anyone. Hmmmm.
the Feds, backed by their "own" courts consistently use the idea that if Federal money is involved, no matter how loosely, that this trumps state's rights. This is primarily used to force "unfunded/underfunded mandates" on the states.
I totally disagree with the tactics being used to force the video to be made available. At the same time I think its wrong to cover up a crime because of one's beliefs. If you videotape a crime then you are obligated to report it. There can be none of this "its okay for us but not them mentality" because we are all us and them at the same time.
He claims there is no crime on the tape, fine, then show it and be done with it. Get it to a public outlet. If there is a crime then he just publicity hounding and forcing an issue that should never had occured.
Hopefully the Feds will lose this attempt to secure the tape but at the same time hopefully he will turn it over to someone if it shows a crime being committed. Willful destruction of property should not be tolerated in any state, free or not. If you cannot protest without destroying someone else's property you need to be locked up as your not a productive part of society let alone doing your cause any good.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I guess I know know what to think. On one hand, I agree with Josh in that if current laws say that unpublished work can remain confidential. I think that gets diminished a little when get selectively chooses to show clips of the video, but I probably agree with his side of the argument, at least in principal.
However, I see the flip side where a crime was committed (the burning of the police car) and the police have a right and duty to investigate the crime. At least from the Time write-up it wasn't like the police crashed his colo, forcible removed his servers, etc. It was a grand jury that subpoenaed him for the evidence. That's their job. Josh had the right to ignore the subpoena to which the Judge charged him with contempt.
I won't argue that saying it's a federal issue because SFPD gets federal funding is a little shady. Every government organization gets federal funding in some way so every government lawsuit should be transferred to federal court. The whole jurisdiction issue aside, it seems to me that things are working as they are suppose to. If you don't like how the laws are written, that's fine, then lobby to get them changed. But don't bitch and moan when the letter of the law is followed.
You can count on this: when all is said and done, this guy will not be compensated in any way for government's attack on his god-given right to freedom. He will be treated like a suspect even after he is found to be innocent. Makes you feel good about living under big government, doesn't it?
The video tape in question was taken on a public street, why not hand it over? It's not protecting anyone in what I would consider a journalistic sense to hold on to it. Surely that only applies to sources, confidentiality etc.. Protecting vandal's rights, if indeed there is vandalism in evidence, strikes me as a guy who is choosing the wrong battle to fight.
I'll agree that (and I am not an american here) the damage to federal property argument does seem tenuous at best. But that seems rather beside the point.
Given the deterioration of US freedom (jailed blogger, increased government spying, court retracted AT&T spying lawsuit, hand-over of Google search records, etc), when will the Bush administration finally implement the Great Firewall idea?
This is flatly outrageous. If every one of us gives a buck to this guy's legal fund, we could actually change federal policy. Even if the court rules that the feds acted properly, it's only a buck. Instead of a soda or a scratch ticket, try gambling on something important today.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
So what happens if there ISN'T said footage of the police car on his unpublished films when they steal them from him. Do they just go, "Oh, well that's a bummer!"? Heh.
Anyone who still believes that we retain those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is off his rocker. Something tells me the US is in need of a (peaceful) revolution in order to shake out the evils that are festering.
Without a free press, really, what are we basing this 'democracy' on?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
This guy has evidence of a crime. Now, in this case it is a crime against the state so people are not terrible sympathetic. Not being sympathetic with the state is as American as guns and apple pie, but people are talking a guy being jailed for not exposing a crime against the state like it is some high moral battle.
What if the role was reversed? What if some pro-police blogger had a video up of protesters getting the shit kicked out of them by police? What if the Rodney King beating had been posted online with the identities of the police officers edited out on a blog? Would we still then be so adamant that a media shield is the best thing?
What if this guy had received a tape of a 12 year old girl getting raped, edited out the rapist, and then posted it onto his blog. Would people still be so adamant that he deserves some sort of media shield?
I think that people are applying the "common sense" test instead of really thinking through the implications of media shield laws, especially in a world where everyone can be the media. It is "common sense" that he would have to give up a video of a little girl getting raped, but not "common sense" that he has to give up a video of a police car being destroyed.
I like the idea of media shield laws to some extent. The press absolutely is an invaluable tool in the regulation of democracy. That said, there needs to be a coherent and consistent approach to such shield laws.
For those who believe that this man is being jailed unfairly, what do you propose the law be? Should the media never be forced to give up evidence of a crime, even in extreme cases like rape and murder? Should some crimes be protected by media shield laws and others not protected?
Bush just needs to collect enough fuel to keep that thing burning.
FRA: STFU GTFO
The original post makes it sound like the article is about a person's rights with respect to blogging...
I'm not seeing what in this article has to do with his blogging (except for the fact that he's a well-known blogger and he came under fire), and I'm instead seeing something like "this guy is refusing to turn over some video footage to an ongoing investigation, so he's getting in trouble for it. Oh, by the way... he has a blog!"
Details of such a heinous thought crime can be found here.
In the past the US of A took a much stronger stand against such obscene human rights violations by the Chinese regime and other dictatorships, but it is very clear that the current regime in Washington has neither the intention nor moral standing to help oppressed and occupied peoples. You see, the dictators in Beijing are among Bush's "staunchest allies" in this bizarre "global war of terror" where the occupied and the oppressed are considered to be the "terrorists"!
Dubya's inaugural address (2005) now reads like a sad mockery of the Freedoms the USA used to claim to be representing:
The six million Tibetans living in the world largest concentration camp they once knew as their homeland meanwhile haven't even got a clue that the "world's most powerful man and the leader of the Free World" ever uttered those words. Even possessing a copy of the UN's Human Rights Declaration is enough to get a Tibetan slammed into the Chinese prison camps...
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
I believe that journalists deserve protection, not for who they are, but for what they do. What must be protected are the freedoms of free press and free speech, not some elevated Fourth Estate, or some bohemian class of Observers. Rules for protecting press and speech need to be applied in a consistent manner, regardless of subject matter. But I do not think that extending protection to all of their endeavors is proper, if the only reason is some vague "chilling effect." It should be constrained to the act of reporting a news item itself. In the other aspects of their jobs and lives, they should live by the same laws as the rest of us.
Yet I have a bit of concern about both this case and the Judy Miller contempt case. In this one, prosecutors want evidence of a crime that is not part of a story. In the Judith Miller case, the secret information she reported was the crime. I'm not saying that either of the two should spend contempt-time in jail for not revealing their information. I really don't think they should have. Yet in both cases I can see the prosecutor's point of view. I don't agree with them, but I understand. Just as much as prosecutors should resist as much as possible the temptation to try to break a reporter's protection, so also should the reporter be very conservative in the invocation of that protection.
That's what it boils down to. If you allow the state to collect unpublished materials from jounalists, the freedom of press is moot.
If you allow journalists to withhold information, and everyone may become a journalist, then everyone could technically find a way to avoid testifying in court.
So what it comes down to is simply, who is more likely to abuse a system? The state or its people. And I for one do rather trust the people than the state.
It's sad, but these days, it's the lesser evil. It's sad that you can't trust your country's leaders anymore. Actually, that many people do think that the "main enemy of the state" is actually ruling it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This guy Wolf wants it ways. On one hand he has his lawyer saying "all journalists are working for a democratic society whose very existence depends upon the free flow of information". OTOH he won't hand over a video tape of a public incident - how does he square that with free flow.
He says "It goes against every moral fiber in my body to sit back and out people for their political beliefs". But surely someone taking part in a demonstration have already outed themselves - the point of a demonstration os to let the world (*especially* the authorities), know your beliefs.
He "denies there is an attempted arson on his videotape". OK, so why doesn't hand the tape over and put an end to this episode and lift the suspicion from those guys? What is Wolf's agenda exactly? Is he milking for self-publicity?
Wolf's lawyer talks about protecting sources. But here the "source" is an incident in public. No-one has placed trust in Wolf that would be betrayed. This is no more than self-importance.
When I was in prison, there was funny guy next to me by the name of Brian, who was stupid and illiterate but a real character and all around good guy. He was in there for... get this... "Terroristic Threats". Yes, I met a real life terrorist.
Apparently while somewhate inebriated as he was prone to do, he got into an arguement with his mom, and threatened her with a butterknife.
So the bogus arguement was, since he threatened her, he was 'creating fear' in a person of the population, therefore 'terroristic threats'.
I think according to his story in the end his mom ended up stabbing him with the same knife. So anyway here was this plain old guy who is really just joe blow common guy of the street, in there as a terrorist, doing 5 years! The sad thing was, he had a hernia which was in a pretty bad condition, and trapped in there like that, and let me tell you, those people don't do shit for you medically wise.
Another guy Edison who turned out to be a good friend and protected me from some very dangerous guy who was deadset on punking me out and making me making his bed (I wasn't down with that), had gone blind in one eye from cataracts and was losing sight in the other. He was a regular bonefide family guy but was in there for "assault on a police officer", when he went to a pawn shop to get his tools back that his crackhead wife had pawned for drugs, and the pawn shop wouldn't do it even though the tools hadn't been hers to sell, and apparently the police were called and the policeman was a real dick and a shoving match ensused. A shoving match. So he was in there for 10 years for assault on a police officer (and is still in there today).
I myself won my appeal after a two year wait on the beauracracy... I was in there for 12 years for child molestation. I was going about my life one day when a friend invited me to his house for a cookout. Ok fine free food. Only it turned out to be less than free! While I was there the mom started yelling at their kid to take a bath who didn't want to do it. Apparently in the bathroom the mom jumped on the kid about wearing their clothes funny which the kid always did, and the kid decided to blame it on me as a suddenly convient excuse, and from there the panic reaction set in and the story grew to fit. Suffice it to say there was no evidence and nobody saw any such thing, and they were out of their mind to think I would do anything like that, but irregardless it was a straight ticket for me into prison. Because let me tell you, if you have never had any experience in front of the public or put on trial, you are scared out of your mind and come across as such. I said over and over again I did not do anything of that sort, and plainly stated things as calmly as I could, but hey, if I wasn't guilty I shouldn't be on trial right? Because the police never make mistakes. We watch Cops! (which by the way is all edited for tv bullcrap).
The thing is this, what most slashdotters don't understand, because they still believe all that propaganda we were told in highschool history class. There is no justice in the justice system. Its just a convient lie to justify a very big, big business of criminalizing people and projecting power. I'm talking obscene profits here, profits that pay people's salaries. For every year they can put someone in prison, they can bill the public back anywhere from $35,000 to $50,000. Make that 50,000 prisoners in one state with each an average of ten year sentences, at $35,000 a year, and we are talking obsene obsene amounts of money. Whatever industry you think is the biggest in your state, forget it, the prison industry is.
I'm not saying there are not some very bad people in prison, I met quite a few hardened street thugs who should be in there for life. I'd say about a third should never be let go, a third were borderline that if given some kind of chance would do ok and probably repeat crime but mostly it would be silly harmless crimes, and then another third had absolutlely no business
If he has video that show people committing crimes, either against govenment properties or other persons, then he is a ass for withholding it from the police. Why would he do this? What does he have to gain or lose?
Imagine...someone caves in your head, it's caught on tape, but the person with the tape won't give it to police because of some twisted sense of jounalistic integrity.
Or maybe he thinks riots like the one he filmed are some kind of appropriate and admirable civil disobediance?
Clearly he has huge chip on his shoulder and thinks that he is more important than most people.
You have already assumed there *IS* evidence of a crime on those tapes. That has yet to be shown. The shield laws were designed to protect those that come forward to the press that would not do so otherwise. It is a required part of our system of government. An informed electorate requires a truly free and protected press. That can't be possible when those in power use that power to intimidate. And what if the tape is only an excuse for a fishing expedition on the part of the police / prosecution and has no evidence of your supposed crime but instead is used as a launching point to intimidate others?
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
When our country was founded, by people who would be called terrorists today
Nice. I missed the part where Washington employeed suicide bombers, or targeted the citizens of Philadelphia to death for being insufficiently pro-rebellion, or where Ben Franklin used sabotage to attack London, or where Patrick Henry cut the balls off captured British soldiers. But other than that, yeah, the American rebels were complete terrorists.
Clear, Dark Skies
Is the government trying to silence this guy? Have they confiscated his footage without leaving him a copy? Are they trying to change the story he's reporting? Are they locking him up for his political views?
No, no, no and no. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. The courts have ask him to produce video footage of a crime that he witnessed and he has refused. That's exactly the same as lying in court and it carries a penalty of jail time. This has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment so it's no wonder the judge wasn't impressed. He's trying to make the claim that all you have to do to be able to lie in court is start up the video camera on your cell phone and become an instant journalist. That's the implication of claiming that anyone that puts up a webpage falls under the shield laws. So maybe the law needs to be rewritten to better define what a journal is, or perhaps it's already clear, I haven't checked. However, all I can say to Josh is "what did you expect, you lied in court? The First Amendment allows you to peacefully criticize the government, it in no way allows you to withhold the details of a crime."
How many of you have read any of the court documents on his site? Clicking on the Grand Jury link (top of page) and scrolling to the bottom, you have a reverse chronological list of events in the case. One of the PDFs, "Reply to US Attorney's Opposition to Quash", has on page 2 a quote from David Picard of the FBI saying, "One of our major domestic terrorism programs is the ALF, EFF, and anarchist movement, and it's a nation program for the FBI." So let me get this straight: The EFF are terrorists? hah! I think that's only because they don't agree with the government...
I'm pretty sure the courts have run God off, and the /. crowd was more than happy to see it...
Liberals believe that rights come from the government.
Josh Wolf's mother gets stabbed in the street and the attacker is caught on a video camera by someone who refuses to hand over the video tape.
What's Josh going to want to happen THEN?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
He has already proven he is no journalist through his refusal to show complete footage and his willingness to edit it to his bias. Whatever happened to Journalistic integrity you remember...unbiased, objective and serving the common good. Most bloggers out there that call themselves journalists do nothing for the common good but feed their own ego's and ajenda's. There is a big difference in a Journalist protecting his "source" and deliberately attempting to protect a crime. Hope he likes his year in jail...too bad the only people who will "admire" his martyrship are the asshats he has placed himself with.
Give $10 bucks instead each month to the EFF or ACLU or whatever
One of the reasons the government has successfully eliminated many rights which we thought were guaranteed by the Constitution, is that there has been no focus of opposition.
The ACLU should have focussed our attention on the violations as they happened. But the ACLU is very partisan. For example, it opposed the recall of Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, in California, on completely spurious grounds. It should keep out of party politics. People who care deeply about the Bill of Rights can be found among Republicans as well as among Democrats, and we need all such people. The ACLU drove them away, by this and many other campaigns.
By all means support the EFF, by the way, though I'm not sure it's as relevant to this particular case as a properly-functioning ACLU would have been.
Lieberman had bipartisan support among the same bums that this thread is talking about throwing out. Among actual voters (i.e. the population), his stands on the issues vs. national public opinion polls give him approximately the same level of public bipartisan support as, say, President Bush right now (i.e. not a hell of a lot).
And the fact that after losing a primary election he says "this will not stand" and continues to run... as an "independent democrat" says that he has no respect for voters or democracy. By definition he is saying that votes don't count. Don't like the outcome? Don't listen to the concerns of the public, then wait until next election cycle and run again. Just ignore the public, tell them that they're all wacky, and continue to claim you're involved in the process.
Why even hold primaries?
I'll be both he and Bush make a great show of still turning up for work after losing in the general elections, claiming that what the "radical public" has done by voting them out of office is wrong and therefore they don't have to "stand for" it. No point in holding elections at all, they just let "radical elements" vote incumbents out.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
"...that there is some portion of the collective "Amreican Dream/Resources" that is owned by ME..."
You, sir, are correct. That portion is called your vote. Do not let the various levels of government dicker with that right with unaudited electronic voting machines.
I support the government in this case. It is perfectly fine to use a fraudulent argument to get access to the video, when the real reason is to identify protestors who have nothing to do with the crime in question, for other reasons.
I further support China using video tapes of Tienamen Square to identify and round up protestors. At least they're honest about the reasons.
I mean, if P. J. O'Rourke can go from a '60's hippie liberal anarchist who hid the identity of a buddy who, in a cowardly manner, clubbed with a 2x4, from behind, and permanently crippled a police officer directing traffic, to a conservative pin-up boy, then there's hope for us all!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Would it be true to say, if they are shielding a crime, they are an accomplice in the crime?
Like the whole Valeria Plame investigation and the reporters involved. If someone had leaked something that wasn't unclassified, then there is no crime, but if you leak classified information, that is a crime; failing to reveal who released the information in this content also could be viewed as an accomplice to the crime.
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Take watergate as an example. Here you had two young reporters that, with the help of a FBI informant, started to dismantle the lies, etc. surrounding the watergate breakin. Could they have divulged more info than they did? Of course... yet protecting the source was arguably more important than the evidence that could have been gleaned from exposing him. Ditto for the Pentagon Papers, another source of controversy in the 1970's.
For one, the feds have no proof that he captured the folk setting the car on fire.
Secondly, claiming that its a federal crime on the basis of some federal anti-terrorism funding to the local PD is stretching the rubber band beyond the breaking point. No matter where the funding comes from, if it's not an item with a federal property ID stamp/sticker on it, it doesn't belong to the feds. That's like claiming that a gift I received from someone else is still their property. Such arguments do not hold up in non-kangaroo courts.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the biggest danger to our democracy... the partisanization of the judiciary via political appointees/hacks that toe the party line and their belief system instead of applying constitutional law, precedent, and common sense to resolving conflicts. This is a creeping process and will only accelerate as past successes embolden political hacks to continue to skew the judicial process/counterweight.
you have all 3 branches of government.
It means you pay a lot of lip service to state's rights.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Part of the controversy is that he may know some of the people who set the police car on fire.
So he isn't 'just' a journalist, a relatviely impartial reporter of the activities. It gets a bit different when you around with your fellow anarchist friends, watch them set a car on fire, and then claim journalist shield laws to try and keep them from jail because the full tape may identify them.
It's like going to colombia, making friends with a rebel leader, and running around with communist guerillas watching them attack the colombia military. Oh, it may be news, just don't be too upset when the Colombian govt chucks you in jail.
Of course, if you hold the same political views of those your following, and every story of yours paints them in a glowing light, you're not a journalist, but a propagandist.
And Josh does have a love for the anarchist movement.
The price of civil disobedience is arrest/contempt of court charges, and whatever punishment you are given.
You do not get to be a Martyr without suffering/dying for a cause.
Same thing applies to "freedom of speech" being construed to protect you from the outcome of expressing an opinion. You are allowed to speak freely without having yourself or your family persecuted by authorities. It does NOT protect you from the opinions of others who have as much right to judge you on your words and actions. And they have the same right to express their opinions as you do.
Often many people have to suffer before a positive change occurs. You do not get the moral high ground just by standing in front of a tank. You often have to be run over before it really matters.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
How many people died in the Boston Tea Party?
By that standard, vandals and grafitti artists are terrorists, too.
Clear, Dark Skies
Please provide an example of someone being labelled a "terrorist" for engaging in petty vandalism.
Clear, Dark Skies
I still fail to see what this guy is protecting. Why not surrender the materials if they really show nothing wrong?
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Anyone who witnesses a crime and does nothing is not a citizen, and is not entitled to treatment as a citizen. How many times in the past have people stood by and watched evil.
Journalists should report on the evil but should also endeavor to stop it. If evil doers know that the press is watching and that the information gathered will be used to stop them, they may think twice before acting.
The courts have ask him to produce video footage of a crime that he witnessed and he has refused
NO. The courts are trying to get him to produce video of a crime that he supposedly witnessed. In fact, even when the video is turned in it might have no burning cars at all... but what it might have are the faces and identities of a bunch of protestors for the police to happily round up and put thumbscrews to. How often nowadays is being within the vicinity of lawbreakers seen as being involved with them, pretty damn often.
On for the record, the state laws do allow him to with-hold the tape, which is why the government has gone to dubious stretches of logic to make it a federal issue.
This implies (to me) that ANYTHING the SFPD does can equally come under federal jurisdiction.
[/tinfoilhat]
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Gimme a single case of someone being charged, or even labelled, as a terrorist for committing vandalism.
Clear, Dark Skies
Under new "laws" (decrees) being drafted by Bush minions they can simply declare him a enemy combatant, torture him and the find him guilty in a secret military tribunal.
Because the San Francisco police are famous for "putting the thumbscrews" to protestors. Why, compared to them, China looks anarchic.
Pull the other one.
Clear, Dark Skies
surely they made their choice when they stood up and protested publically?
I want to add a little context. Why does the federal government care about this case? You'd think they have more important things to do than investigate every alleged attempted arson on a municipal police car. There's no SFPD records of a damaged car from that night and no repairs were made. And the link to federal juridiction because they gave money which may have been used to pay for the car is tenuous at best.
There was an SFPD officer who was injured that night and the FBI and US Attorneys office are improperly collaborating with the SFPD to investigate it. There is a CA journalist shield law, but no federal shield law (much to the chagrin of Judith Miller). If they had played by their own rules and convened a state grand jury to investigate the injured officer, Josh would have been protected by this law and wouldn't be in custody now. The government is doing an end-run around these protections by using the federal grand jury and is lying about its motives.
Repbulicrats supporting "state's rights."
this is wrong. government is out of control.
while the bushaviks keep repeating "them dern trrrists want ta take yerrrrr dern freedoms!," the bushaviks continue to, well, take our freedoms before the trrrists can even get near them.
this is sad.
Well, I'm glad that if I buy groceries with my Social Security check and they get stolen, I can call the FBI to investigate it. . .
The argument for federal jurisdiction here seems pretty shaky, and one can question the validity of a subpoena based on mere speculation that video might show illegal activity, but I don't see why this should fall under shield laws for journalists. The purpose of shield laws is to enable journalists to make use of confidential sources. There aren't any confidential sources here. The guy shot video footage of people with whom he had no confidentiality agreement in a public place in which they had no expectation of privacy. There's absolutely no reason that journalists shouldn't turn over evidence of this type. If the state shield law actually does allow journalists to refuse to turn over evidence in situations like this, it is a badly written law.
I totally disagree with the tactics being used to force the video to be made available. At the same time I think its wrong to cover up a crime because of one's beliefs.
Along the same lines, the same incident (burning the cop car on July 9, 2005) led to some people being charged with lynching in a pretty bogus way. The California lynching statute is apparently worded very broadly. It doesn't just cover what you imagine as the concept of a lynching (white rednecks kill a black man because he has a white girlfriend, as in To Kill a Mockingbird). The situation was apparently that the police tried to arrest someone, and the suspect's buddies pulled him away from the police. (The case is referred to by the WP article on Lynching in the United States, but unfortunately the link in the article's footnote is to a TV news web page that seems to have evaporated.)
My response to the lynching charge is pretty much the same as your response to the contempt case: the law is being interpreted in ridiculous ways, and there's no excuse for that. OTOH, that doesn't excuse what these people did. IIRC, this was a really reckless, violent attack on some cops, and caused life-threatening injuries. (But then, COINTELPRO taught us that you shouldn't always believe government allegations like that.)
Find free books.
What if the video shows Josh Wolf himself trashing the police vehicle? Forcing him to provide it would be forcing him to provide self-incriminating evidence.
I thought the idea behind the 5th amendment was that if people are pressured to say they are guilty them you'll having innocent people saying that they're guilty even when they're not. Of course, because prosecuters can offer "deals" then this happens anyway.
An interesting question is whether it's OK to pressure someone to say that someone else is guilty. Presumably people shouldn't have much incentive to protect other people so this shouldn't even be an issue but that cuts both ways because if you do apply pressure then you're very likely to get false accusations.
In this case, however, it's not the testimony itself that is in question but instead the video tape. Personally, I'm not seeing why the police couldn't just get a search warrant to seize the tape if they have reason to believe it is relevent to their case. I mean, if someone had a bloody knife that someone else had used to commit a crime then it would seem the police could get a search warrant to get the knife to use as evidence.
Remember ALF? He's back! In terrorist form!
... we do not know whether he did or did not record the crime occuring. He claims he did not.
... the watergate breakin is comparable because no one but the reporters had an inkling of what was going on and what was behind the breakin until they and their confidential source had done a lot of detective work. Blowing the story at an early stage would have compromised some of the henchmen (perhaps) but it would have left Nixon and the rest of the puppeteers in office.
Similarly, if we force every news media outlet to submit all tapes, interviews, and other source material for any reason to any state organization that suspects that the media have collected data on a crime, then the media becomes a glorified version of the East German STASI. In particular, no investigations of government crimes will be possible at that point since the state will be simply able to supoena it all and make it disappear.
Some of the warrantless searches (sneak and peak, wiretapping) are clearly a step in that direction and ought to be fought at every possible junction. Otherwise, the descent down the slippery slope of eroding civil liberties in the name of law and order is all too easy. There is a price to pay for a free society, and the absence of "law and order" at every opportunity for trouble is one of them. I prefer it that way.
Don't get me wrong, I do not condone vandalism either. However, the police in particular have to work within the framework of the law, and in this case I feel the law has been willfully abused by the prosecution to fabricate a federal crime where there was none. If the state wants to ask for film footage, it may do so. But demanding it is a whole other matter.
Shield laws serve a very important purpose, and that is exposing corrupt officials to the populace so that we the voters can get rid of them, either through impeachment or by voting the bums out. Time and time again, states around the world have proven that giving them absolute power led to absolute corruption. The judiciary and to a lesser extent a free press can help counteract such tendencies, but ultimately it depends on us to steer the state.
The only meat in this story is the specious jurisdiction issue. The fact that the guy is a blogger is irrelevant: anybody can go do jail for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury. Confusing the two issues may give the Blogodrome more to talk about, but it causes the point to be missed.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
.. can someone help me out here? Did I miss the memo where it was against the law to keep your personal property to yourself?
Let's nominate this man for the Insightful post of the day award.
What makes you think the U.S. government would be able to gather to the support to simply CRITICISE China while every single "I-read-1984-and-this-government-is-the-new-Big-Br other" screaming citizen points to Gitmo as a modern 'concentration camp.'
firebombs, death threats and causing $3.5 million in damage don't count as "petty vandalism".
Clear, Dark Skies
If the crime had been not the destruction of property but violence against one or more persons there'd be little debate on whether or not allowing investigators to view the tapes would be the right call. If it wasn't a police car on fire but a human victim lying on the sidewalk, would you support Josh's decision not to let investigators view the whole tape? I wouldn't.
Cites.
Citing a TV commercial that says drugs support terrorism is hardly evidence that the government considers petty vandals to be terrorists.
Clear, Dark Skies
Who's the fucking dipshit that would mod down the parent comment but not the grandparent?
"The fact is that no one is in danger of these people."
The police officer who ended up at San Francisco General with a concussion and a blod clot would disagree.
That said, if a journalist is merely at an event and records it as any regular citizen could, there should be no special status given to that recording. I believe that the material must meet one of the following requirements to receive special status:
- It was obtained using special access granted to the journalist by virtue of his/her being a journalist. Said access was unique to this journalist and explicitly granted (such as a guarantee of safe conduct).
- The journalist's actions in being there and choosing what to document were based on information from a confidential source, and access to the unedited documentation could identify the source, harm the source, or reasonably deter the source from entrusting any journalist with future confidential information.
- In the course of documenting the event, a participant says something to the journalist that may be considered confidential information.
If the journalist merely heard something was going on via a publicly available information source, showed up, and started shooting pictures or video, there should be no special status granted to the material he does not publish.All that said, we cannot rely on the assertions of the journalist and his lawyers that one of these cases are true. A confidential panel, composed of two journalists and one judge (not the judge on the case), chosen by mutual agreement of the prosecution and the journalist's lawyers, should be allowed to review the material. They are under legal penalty of imprisonment if they should ever reveal the contents of the material or use it to gain any advantage in their careers. The panel will determine if any of the material is subject to protection, and if so, what portions.
I think that's the best way to handle this. Journalists should not be able to declare anything they want confidential. Sometimes they're just in the right place at the right time by dumb luck or "gut instinct" and any footage they get through dumb luck or "gut instinct" should not be considered privileged.
IMO.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
The key is that those fat, lazy, apathetic people who, like you apparently, don't feel their vote count, get up and vote out the incumbents. Once the incumbents are removed, if things don't improve, vote out the ones you just put in. Keep doing that until the message sinks in.
The problem here is that you can't simply vote someone out of office. You have to vote someone else IN.
I imagine you might get a much larger voter turnout if you were allowed to vote either FOR or AGAINST, rather than just FOR or not voting. It seems evident to me that people don't really care who's in charge if who's in charge doesn't fuck things up too much, which is largely why people don't research who is running and go out and vote for someone, but rather just sit around and bitch about why they don't like the guy who's running the show right now (or don't bitch if things are going well). Thus it seems people are much more likely to say either "I hate [incumbent] and want his ass out" or "everything is going fine", rather than "I like [challenger] and approve of his platform and strategies". The latter type of opinion takes too much work for the average person to bother forming one. The former type of opinion - a simple "things are fine" or "I don't like it" - is much easier for the average person to think, and so might motivate them to actually go out and vote their mind.
So if we had the option to cast either a positive or negative vote, I imagine you'd get a lot of negative votes for the two big parties (since many, though of course not all, supporters of the two big parties often define themselves by opposition to the other party, more than support of what their own party values). This would have a net effect of giving third parties a much better fighting chance. Just look at the whole "anybody but Bush" sentiment out there. Something like this could work and break the two-party oligarchy.
Which is precisely why you'll never see it implemented.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
You can't prove any of this, but, hey, it all sounds so scary it must be true!
I particularly enjoy how you conflated actual threats against our liberties with intellectual gibberish.
Scary stories might be fun on camping trips, but in the real world, I prefer to make decisions based on real evidence, not ravings of people who aren't even bright enough to distinguish between a request for evidence and "trolling".
Clear, Dark Skies
Henceforth, Federal taxes will be collected by the state of California and distributed to the Federal government and/or state agencies at the sole discretion of the California state legislature.
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. ~ Ed Howdershelt
Look, when people go around making ridiculous claims that the government equates vandalism with terrorism all they do is undermine their own cause and, like the boy who cried wolf, end up being the cause of the problem rather than the solution.
Criticizing the government for what it is doing is fine, and valuable. Making shit up is merely embarassing.
Clear, Dark Skies
Our nation was formed in bloody revolution and our most basic documents reflect that.
If the people of the UK really mistrusted their government they would give it less power, this would be reflected in the % of GDP under government control.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I did vote, yet I am still disappointed with the outcome. Life is strange.
who thinks the government has any right to to be pushing the states around like it is should be shot in the gut and left for dead. Did you know that the congress is trying to give the president total control of the National Guard instead of allowing the state governors.
Given decisions like this one, is there anyone at all who does not view US courts with contempt?
(besides the judges who continue to get paid, anyway)
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
fuck you pete
jefferson
"Jefferson".
your right & were
"you're right, and we're".
were content
"we're".
P. S. It was Franklin, not Jefferson, who wrote that "essential liberties" thing, so the GP was more correcter.
I just wanted to say that this is a fantastic quote. If anything, what we are seeing is that government basically plays every trick in the book when it wants to -- and even throws the book out entirely, in some cases. "The Man" should be held to higher standards, because he is much more dangerous than any of us, or even many of us.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.