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.'"
"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.
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...
The whole jurisdiction issue aside, it seems to me that things are working as they are suppose to.
Jurisdiction is the issue.
KFG
- 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.
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?
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.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
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?
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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"...
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
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.
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?
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."
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
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.
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.