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.'"

5 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I don't know by ray-auch · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    Two sets of laws are in conflict here, question is which do you follow. Federal law is trying to get him to do something (turn over video) that state law explicitly says he does not have to do.

    The ("a little shady") jurisdiction question is everything, you can't just say "jurisdiction issue aside..." because it is the issue.

  2. Re:Thinking it Through: The Logic of Shield Laws by TheGreek · · Score: 4, Informative
    If Wolf was a big media corporation, the feds would never have bothered to file a subpoena. He's going to jail because they don't want citizen journalism, it's that simple.

    Oh, really now?
  3. Re:I don't know by kthejoker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Politicians are much, much cheaper than that.

    You can get $600,000 in sweetheart deals just by donating $40,000 to a House campaign. Oh, and note that that's 25 people giving money, not 1 person.

    Sure, two grand a person is a lot for representation, but look at the ROI. And it would only take 4,000 people donating $10 each to a cause to get this kind of treatment. Or 400 people giving $100 each.

  4. No, no, no by phorm · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Typical method of Fed intimidation by JonToycrafter · · Score: 4, Informative

    You want proof the NYPD edits its tapes that it uses as evidence? Here's the NY Times article (you have to pay):

    Here is a graphic that you don't need to pay for.

    Googling for NYPD RNC edited tapes turns up a bunch of hits.

    I was actually involved in this story - I volunteered to watch videos of the RNC protests to write logs for them for I-Witness Video. I logged the differences between the tapes, although it was someone else who first noticed the difference - Eileen Clancy, who's mentioned in the article. Also edited out, but not mentioned in the NYT article, is the NYPD beating the shit out of a black protestor.

    Nor is this an isolated incident - the NYPD routinely denies that tapes exist. In an unrelated case, a witness's tape caught several plainclothes cops on camera with videotapes in one of these cases, and the NYPD said, "How do you know those are cops, that could be anyone." Eileen had to be called to the stand to testify that those people had been identified as cops in other videos before the NYPD (and DA's office) admitted that tapes existed and released them to the defense.

    Or how about the Miami PD denying they attacked a first aid station during protests there in 2003, despite reports that the PD videotaped it?

    I'd like to see the Feds take action in THOSE cases (the DOJ was supposed to look into the NYPD abuses, but Google turns up nothing after the initial announcement). Josh Wolf is a brave man, and his reasons for not providing the tape certainly, in the context of our country's law enforcement tactics, certainly outweigh the potential benefit of releasing the tape.