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.'"
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 On one hand, I agree with Josh in that if current laws say that unpublished work can remain confidential.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?
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...
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
"If you videotape a crime then you are obligated to report it. "
That cuts both ways, but as we've seen, NYPD among others has a habit of providing EDITED TAPES when supoeaed.
IF you want to hold The People to a standard, FIRST hold The Man to it.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Well I just read TFA and I didn't see a reference to his mother continuing to blog as the reason cited for this being a federal case. My understanding from reading TFA is that the footage that Josh shot was of G8 protestors lighting a police car on fire. Because the Fed Gov gives money to CA for "anti-terrorism" which is then used to fund things like police cars this is now a federal matter. Becasue we all know a guy who is politically active but doesn't agree with the current ruling party is just a half step away from Osama Bin Laden. Especially when he is prone to carryng a video camera with him everywhere he goes.
We have truly become a police state. In the name of anti-terrorism everything Americans know and love about the USA is quickly dieing.
It's been quoted a thousand times but I think in this context it bears repeating:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
1775
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
The world is not this simple. It is not black or white. Analogy are fine for helping to describe something, or explain something, but not for judging whether something is right or wrong.
That is why we have judges in a court of law, because there are a number of ways of interpreting the law as well as criminal actions.
You comparison of a police car on fire, to the rape of a 12 year old girl are so different, that it disgusting of you to even try to compare them. It cheapens the whole debate. Might as well bring in Nazis concentration camps as well.
If the police car in question is federal property because some federal funds went towards its purchase, then it logically follows that the folks who allegedly set it on fire were burning their own property, because, as taxpayers, they own the federal government.
As the latter part of that argument doesn't hold water, neither should the former.
www.wavefront-av.com
If you are a journalist covering a riot, or any large social diturbance, you are going to see crimes. If you can be compelled to show criminals on the tape, then pretty soon no journalist will cover such things for fear of retribution from the rioters, who know that the guy taping them will have to hand his tape over to the feds. Not much longer, and there won't be any tapes of such things. If you took it to an extreme, we'd have a Tiananmen Square sort of deal, only for slightly different reasons.
BSD: The most efficient way of subsidizing the enemy.
Define journalist for us, then. Or would you prefer that the government defined it?
Remember long ago that the British government wanted to stifle our pamphleteering, which was aimed at destroying British loyalty. Our forefathers ensured that we would always have this right when they created the first amendment.
Or can you only be willing to stand up for your beliefs when there's no chance of repercussions?
James Madison was one of those people - I'm sure if you'd been around back when the father of the consitution was (anonymously) writing the federalist papers, you would have said to him "Can you only be willing to stand up for your beliefs when there's no chance of repercussions?"
But that's all a little beside the point - none of the people in the videos are being given a choice, its the blogger who's deciding....
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Thank you.
The number of people replying "Just show the tape, if it has no crimes" in this thread really bothers me. It bothers me because of the shortsightedness/lack of history awareness they show.
Operations such as cointelpro are almost certainly continuing to operate. People like Josh Wolf are the targets. The people most likely to be on his tapes are his friends, family & associates.
If he hands over these tapes, he can expect everyone on them to be harassed. Frankly, thank the gods for people like him - they stand between us & a far more opressive world.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Im not sure what your definition is, but here are a few definitions to keep you occipied.
FWIW this man is a journalist and by the most technical means ANYONE holding a camera recording footage to be reported to the general public is a journalist. Not just someone who gets a paycheck from a major news media company.
This is what is sad about our country these days, people assume that to do things, even simple things you must be registered and have some form of permission from some higher power. This is supposed to be a free country not free so long as its ok with mommy Administrative branch and daddy Judicial branch. Sadly thats what we are coming to.
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
that the feds partially own everything bought by any city or state agency who in any way receive any form of money from any federal agency, and that all of those things are under federal jurisdiction.
As your post so nicely points out, that is patently absurd.
Hopefully someone can stop this line of reasoning and have it declared illegal very quickly. Or else, the feds will be able to claim jurisdiction for practically anything, at any time, merely because they wish to, and the agency in question received some federal moneys at some point. So much for the Constitution.
Watching America become a friggin' police state is very troubling, and I'm not even American.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Although it doesn't seem to support what most people think... basically anybody can be required to testify in front of a grand jury. In the courtroom, the first amendment doesn't give special rights to the press. And in a position that you might want to think about before replying, I agree. There should be no special legal benefits given to a citizen over another citizen based on their profession. I find it amazing that most people here are happy with giving special legal shelter to a "special class" of citizen.
Equality under the law should apply to all citizens.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Anybody can fire up a blog and become the press -- and many people on the in public carry a digital camera or video recorder at all times as part of their cell phone. I think that rather than dispensing special rights to a "special class" that is becoming less and less distinguishable from the public, we should re-examine why and under what circumstances any citizen is compelled to give testimony.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I would argue that the STATE authorities might have cause to get a warrant...but, not the feds. As far as I can tell, no crime was committed here to a federal agent, nor federal property. The larger question here is, the feds really stretching facts to try to make a state case a federal case. They are trying to usurp the states rights in this case. There should be no federal jurisdiction in this case...at least from what I can tell.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
They weren't burning their own property. They were burning our property. We have rules about who gets to burn police cars, and where, and when, and how. Personally, I fucking hate it when someone decides that the rules apply to everybody except them. They want to change our rules, let them discuss it with the rest of us, so that we can all agree on the changes. If they're not going to do that, then as far as I'm concerned, they've separated themselves from the rest of us, and no longer have any claim on our joint assets and privileges. The sooner our executive agents throw the book at these asshats, the better.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Um, there is one little tiny point you missed. This is being processed as a Federal Case because the State has laws in place to protect him from this type of lawsuit. The police car is registered to the State - not the Federal - Government. The incident occured on a public road - not Federal Land. The type of crime - arson - is State - not Federal. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction. What they are using is an extremely far fetched claim of partial ownership of the police car, based on the fact that DHS gave the City govt a Block Grant.
The problem is that Block Grants are just that Grants - they don't impart any degree of ownership. If the US Govt isn't listed on the car's title as a joint owner, and the value of the part ownership isn't listed in the DHS accounting books, they don't own it & don't have standing for jurisdiction in this case. The issue isn't that somebody is trying to get him to fork over his tapes, it's that the people who are doing it don't have the legal standing in a sane world to do it. California put into place a law specifically to avoid intimidating the press like this, by making it a Federal case under extremely dubious context, the Federal Government is sidestepping that law and vastly overstepping it's jurusdiction.