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.'"

Comments

Well

[zoomshorts]

"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.

Re:Well

[cowboy76Spain]

It is called "voting"

Re:Well

[dangerz]

I'm sorry, I live in the United States. What exactly is this "voting" thing that you're talking about and does it actually work?

Re:Well

[Phreakiture]

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.

Re:Well

[gstoddart]

If the police car in question is federal property because some federal funds went towards its purchase, then it logically follows

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.

Re:Well

[susano_otter]

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.

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.

Typical method of Fed intimidation

[Shivetya]

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.

Re:Typical method of Fed intimidation

[kfg]

He claims there is no crime on the tape, fine, then show it and be done with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Some of us remember.

KFG

Re:Typical method of Fed intimidation

[mikelieman]

"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.

Re:Typical method of Fed intimidation

[Kaktrot]

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.

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.

Re:Typical method of Fed intimidation

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:Typical method of Fed intimidation

[JonToycrafter]

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.

I don't know

[cdrudge]

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.

Re:I don't know

[kfg]

The whole jurisdiction issue aside, it seems to me that things are working as they are suppose to.

Jurisdiction is the issue.

KFG

Re:I don't know

[nutrock69]

- If you don't like how the laws are written, that's fine, then lobby to get them changed.

I'm sorry - I seem to be missing the millions of dollars necessary to hire someone to bribe a politician and get a bad law changed. Regular people simply don't have this option available.

Someone else said that we have this thing called 'voting'. I am honestly wondering when the last time was that voting actually mattered in the US. Every election we get the same rhetoric, shoveled in, then shoveled out. If the office changes residents, the new guy continues the job exactly like the old guy because he/she/it is afraid to change the status quo or to upset their party line. Voting doesn't change shit, it only changes the shovel.

Re:I don't know

[LordLucless]

The reason journalists get that privelege is to maintain a free press. "Unpublished material" often includes details a journalist has recorded about people who have only agreed to talk to the journalist with the proviso that their details be held confidential. If the government was able to take that information by force, people would no longer believe a journalists assurance of confidentiality. If that's the case, then people will no longer talk to journalists about issues that could get them in trouble - like government whistleblowers, for example. If the government is able to inspect journalists unpublished materials, then nobody would ever go to a journalist to reveal damning information about government activities.

Re:I don't know

[ray-auch]

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.

Re:I don't know

[Opportunist]

Maybe, if we all chip in we could afford a senator? Needn't be a big one, maybe one from a small state would do.

Re:I don't know

[smooth wombat]

I am honestly wondering when the last time was that voting actually mattered in the US.

Several incumbent Congress folks were voted out of office yesterday. The three that I know of are Joe Lieberman (over 18 years in the Senate), Cynthia McKinney and Joe Schwarz (1-term Republican from Michigan).

It also appears that Rick Santorum, Senator from my state, will be unseated this fall unless the new electronic voting machines can be surrepticiously rigged after testing (which seems to be very thorough thanks to Carnegie Mellon University professor Michael Shamos). See this article which gives a brief background of him.

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.

Of course being that we only have a ~30% voter turnout this will never happen and people will continue to whine that their vote doesn't matter. Which it won't if you don't get off your fat, lazy ass and cast a vote.

Re:I don't know

[kthejoker]

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.

Re:I don't know

[nutrock69]

- 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.

Just because I feel my vote is being ignored doesn't mean I don't vote. I do vote. Every election. And when I vote this fall, I will doing my damnedest to help unseat Santorum - just like you (you didn't say how you'd be voting, but we can all hope).

We live in a society where we are told from early childhood that "Every Vote Counts", yet we have a presidential election system that actually allows a candidate with less than the majority vote to take office. No matter what happened in Florida in 2000, there were over 200,000 votes from other states that were effectively ignored by the Electoral College. In fact, the state representatives in the Electoral College aren't even required to delegate their points the same way as their state did - they can give the election to one candidate even if the regular votes were 100% for the opposition!.

We have an election system which allows the newly elected to skew voter districts in their favor so they can keep being elected no matter what the populace really thinks. Representatives can be shuffled around after election day such that they can represent a group of citizens that didn't vote for them or possibly get voted out next time because of party influence.

And we have a governmental body that is working very hard to keep a dishonest election system intact so they can continue to keep power. Voting out the incumbents will never change this system until all of the incumbents get unseated at once. If a few get voted out the ones left chalk it up to standard deviation and continue going about ruining our lives. If every incumbent lost their job all at once they won't be able to explain it away so easily. However, only 1/3 max of our reps can be voted out at a time, so I'd be willing to bet the next group will continue trying to ruin our lives the same way.

That is why I feel like my vote isn't important - but it doesn't stop me from trying anyway.

Compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Fund this now!

[zeropointburn]

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.

Close to the last straw

[Red Flayer]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit that advocates for the public interest and digital rights, is more pointed by suggesting that do-it-yourself media creators should use technology to help conceal their real identities online.

The solution to the lack of a free press is to publish anonymously?

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?

Re:Close to the last straw

[Shihar]

The US is still a democracy. Revolutions are simple. Get more then 50% of the vote. Get more then 2/3 the vote and you can completely rewrite the government to whatever you damn well please.

I always find the notion that the US needs a new "revolution" laughable. The US has a functional system already in place to allow revolution. Believe me, getting a 50% or even 2/3 majority is a hell of a lot easier then trying armed rebellion or even a drawn out peaceful demonstration. The issue in the United States is not the oppressed masses. The issue in the United States is the indifferent masses.

If you can't get the average American off their lazy ass to spend a single hour of their time to vote for a candidate, you can pretty much rest assured that you won't get them off their lazy asses for any sort of "revolution", peaceful or otherwise.

Hell, you don't even need to get 2/3 or 50% of the population to vote in your favor. You need to get 2/3 of the VOTING population to vote for you. If you optimistically assume that 50% of Americans who can vote do vote, that means that you need only 25% of the population that can vote to take control of the government. With a paltry 33% of the people who can vote voting in your favor, you can completely rewrite the government and constitution.

Americans don't need a "revolution". They need to get off their lazy asses and vote if they don't like what they see.

Re:Close to the last straw

[$1uck]

Are you a US citizen? I don't mean to sound rude, but your post oozes with idealism and a certain lack in understanding of how US politics works. You seem to understand how its supposed to work, but it doesn't work this way. There are two political parties in power that for all intents and purposes might as well be one. They do a really good job of keeping all the power to themselves and locking out any independants/third parties. They both claim to have differing agendas (and to a small degree actually do), but when it comes to anyone proposing some real change it won't happen. The US is in need of a revolution something to streamline and open the government. You call american voters indifferent, wouldn't you be indifferent if your only choices were coke and pepsi and you really wanted something altogether different than a cola?

Thinking it Through: The Logic of Shield Laws

[Shihar]

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?

Re:Thinking it Through: The Logic of Shield Laws

[mgblst]

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.

Re:Thinking it Through: The Logic of Shield Laws

[TheGreek]

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?

Re:Gateway

[just_another_sean]

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

Meanwhile in Chinese-occupied Tibet...

[Anonymous Bullard]

Meanwhile in Chinese-occupied Tibet a 29-year-old Tibetan teacher and writer, Dolma Kyab, was sentenced to 10 years in prison where the Tibetans are invariably infected with tuberculosis and other serious heath problems (besides the usual other forms of "mistreatment" by guards) for... having written a book which wasn't even published!

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:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

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...

Re:Gateway

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

My understanding from reading TFA is that the footage that Josh shot was of G8 protestors lighting a police car on fire.

Slight correction, the feds are arguing the footable MIGHT show G8 protesters lighting the car. Josh says there is no such thing on his video. So the federal judge ruled its a federal case, because federal agents speculate that its possible it may show something which if streched as far as possible could be seen as a federal case even though those who have seen the video say it shows no such thing.
That seems a VERY low threshold for over-riding the states jurisdiction.

Re:Gateway

[skoaldipper]

I believe Oliver Stone is currently in post production of "Biatch, I Shrunk my Cellmate", starring Josh with Rick Moranis as his prison poon. Josh slips through the bars and later blogs his video adventures of red and black ants fighting over dead camels in Iraq. I've seen the trailer, and the worst part is when a black ant straps some cream of wheat to his belly and charges a red mound yelling "lu lu lu lu lu lu"...

Re:Gateway

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:why not hand the tape over

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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....

Unfortunately the ACLU is part of the problem

[njdj]

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.

Re:Unfortunately the ACLU is part of the problem

[demonbug]

To be clear, the article you linked to said absolutely nothing about the ACLU being opposed to the recall of Gray Davis. What the article you linked to said was that the ACLU argued that the vote should be delayed until counties still using the punch card system deemed unreliable after the 2000 vote were able to bring better systems online. According to your article, the ACLU's lawsuit was only concerned with ensuring that all votes would be recorded as accurately as possible.

In slightly more depth; the ACLU did not "oppose" the recall election, they were instead attempting to ensure that each person who bothered to cast a vote had their vote counted. At that time it had been mandated that new voting machines be in place before the next general election, but 12 counties had not yet complied with the order (since they still had a significant amount of time before the next "regularly scheduled" election was to take place). The ACLU was pointing out that since the recall election would take place before the 12 counties wouold be able to get their act together, resulting in another election with wide-rannging impacts potenitally being decided by voting machines officially considered unreliable, the election should be delayed until those counties were able to comply.

Like usual, the right then jumped all over them (as you do) for getting involved in party politics, when in fact they were doing what they have done incredibly consistently in the past - attempting to protect the civil liberties that we enjoy, regardless of what narrow group it will harm or help in the short term. The ACLU is functioning perfectly well; the problem is that people like you consistently mis-interpret their fights to protect our basic rights and liberties in terms of who they are helping or hurting short-term; the same people who say how evil the ACLU is when they fight, for example, for the freedom of speech of groups that are widely despised.

Re:Gateway

[Fnkmaster]

I do not see how this would be anything but a federal matter.

Did you read the summary of the argument for Federal jurisdiction? It is apparently based on the fact that the SFPD receives Federal anti-terrorism funding. This is absurd. Though I find the act of burning police cars repugnant and I loathe most of these nonsensical protestors more than anything, I can't abide the abuse of jurisdiction just to browbeat a guy into giving the Feds a video that somebody says might contain footage of a crime being committed.

I don't know what the qualifications for being a "journalist" are, but if the state has laws that shield journalists, why not let the state court decide whether the guy is a journalist rather than relying on a complete legal fiction and an "ends-justify-the-means" attitude towards jurisdiction?

Re:Gateway

[Manitcor]

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.

Re:Gateway

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"How can he try to hide behind a shield law if he did not record any crime? "

Perhaps because the shield law is about Protecting Unpublished Information and Confidential Sources and specificly "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort" for the purpose of protecting "a journalist from being adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for the failure to comply with a subpoena."

So if he is a journalist, then he should be covered. I don't see how he could possibly not be a journalist. So he should be covered. It certainly feels as though the Feds are more or less saying, "You have it, we want it, we are taking it."

Re:Gateway

[JabberWokky]

More important than definitions, here's legal precedence.

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

Re:Gateway

[JabberWokky]

Lest my point be misconstrued, I'm not advocating that people should be forced to testify on a whim. In fact, I'd say that "everybody is equal to the press", and the criteria should be fairly high to compel testimony from any citizen.

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

No, no, no

[phorm]

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.

Re:Gateway

[cayenne8]

"That is why they were granted the warrant: to see if there is useful information on the video. They had probable cause to get the warrant (seeing him filming near the protests)."

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.

Just torture him, he'll give up the tape...

[bodland]

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.

Re:Gateway

[tinkerghost]

That is why they were granted the warrant: to see if there is useful information on the video. They had probable cause to get the warrant (seeing him filming near the protests). Nobody's rights are being violated here, this is just a run-of-the-mill protecting protesters case where some kids makes himself out to be a victim. They should charge him with felony obstruction of justice. Get over yourself Slashdot, this is NOT a "your rights online" paranoia-fueled big government tin foil hat case!

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.