Slashdot Mirror
Interview With Jailed Video Blogger Josh Wolf
Video blogger and independent journalist Josh Wolf has been in a federal jail for 170 days for refusing to turn over to a federal grand jury a video of a San Francisco demonstration. On Feb. 6 Wolf's length of incarceration set a new record for US journalism. "Democracy Now!" has an interview with Josh Wolf from his jail cell. If federal authorities can jail bloggers with impunity, it does not bode well for the future of citizen journalism.
From TFS:
Many of you resent the white males that drafted your bill of rights; now that you're replacing them by slaves and tyrants, don't complain when your liberty falls by the same stroke.
Government sans tyranny is masculine and congenitally European—two necessary but insufficient conditions for liberty.
_____________
* Europandry: European mandom.
I don't think the fellow was jailed with "impunity". He disregarded a subpoena from a court. Be a good citizen. Show up to court when called. It's no different than standard etiquette and social grace. If you're invited to a large party of important people, even if you disagree with them, at least show up and have a few hors d'oevres.
With respect to the tape I think that Josh has a positive mindset: let the judge review the tape. I'll grant that it is probably the US attorney who's being the idiot in this regard.
With respect to the testimoney I think that Josh has a negative mindset: as with the subpoena, show up to court. There are a million different ways of saying "I cannot be positive beyond a reasonable doubt. My religion prevents me from bearing false witness." Something along those lines. Again, if the US attorney weren't being the idiot with respect to allowing the judge to do his job and make the call on whether or not to include the tape, then this probably wouldn't be an issue.
I think that, as usual, the US attorney is being a knob because he can--because his social connections and political backing give him power over a standard citizen. At the same time: Hey, Josh! When a federal court sends you a subpoena that means "Show up or else!"
Disregarding a subpoena is a gesture of disrespect and impunity. Jailing a citizen for disregarding a subpoena is just standard procedure (afaik).
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
He has video of what are presumably illegal acts by anti-G8 demonstrators, which he refuses to turn over. Anybody - member of the old media or not - would be compelled to turn this over. And if they, the old media, don't have a right to withold evidence from a grand jury empaneled to investigate these crimes - why should he?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Why do "Journalists" have the special right to not give up information to a corut demanding it?
I would understand if it was about him, you know, fifth amendment and all.
But does he have some special credential that signifies him a journalist and immune from the eyes of the court? For that matter, is there any laws that discern high-profile journalists? If there are state laws, why are there?
I'm just questioning the reasoning behind different "class" of citizens.
obstruction of justice? Withholding evidence? So, because i have a blog, i can garner support in case i'm jailed for going against the orders of a grand jury? Sounds like someone read "journalist in jail" and read into it "Jailed for saying or posting something anti-government on a blog"
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
A grand jury or a court can order you to produce damned near anything it wants. Being a jouralist (or a blogger) is no shield, or haven't you kids been watching the Plamegate/Libby trial?
And this is a good thing. You can't have justice without first establishing the truth and for that you have to be able to present ALL of the evidence. I really can't see why journalists think they are some sort of fscking priesthood set above all other instituitions. Get over yourselves, you are mostly talentless hacks anyway.
This idiot was issued an order to produce evidence, he refused and his butt is in jail. And that is exactly where he belongs, for his refusal to comply with one of the most basic responsibilities attached to citizenship.
Democrat delenda est
Because slashdot belives that "citizens" should get special treatment over the "establishment". Why else would this story be here?
If you refuse a legal subpoena then you go to jail. It's got nothing to independent journalism or even protecting his sources - at this level of the game, they want to see the tape. Maybe he'll be interviewed for information about the people on the tape at a later date, but that's not the issue here. Go to jail for (in some weird sense) "protecting your sources", not for witholding evidence, if you want to make a statement.
This feels like seriously biased reporting.
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
Two words: Judith Miller
If you and the judge disagree and you don't come around to the judge's point of view, you're going to jail.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
seriously, turning up to court isn't a suggestion, it's a requirment when they tell you to. this guy has video of illegal activities and things because he's got a blog he's some kind of pro hax journo and the law doesn't apply to him? i hope the cunt gets raped with a deep heat condom while in jail so he play the victim all the more.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
170 days may be a record for jounalist but others have been simularly held for longer and under worse conditions. Susan McDougal apwnt 18 months jailed with 7 weeks of that time in solitare confinment for not turning evidence over to the white water investigators. She claimed something even more compelling then a brief association with the press under an emerging form or journalism. She claimed it would incriminate her and refused based on directly worded constitutional rights- not an interpretation someone could change if neccesary.
It should have been stopped then but it wasn't. Now we have this and we are still seeing it happen. I'm not sure how long before we see shooting someone on a mountain top because of rules of engagment or maybe gass and burn down a building full of women and children again. 170 days seems like it is small compared to others. He could be there a while longer just to match recent simular cases of this happening. I wonder how long he will hold out?
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
"A grand jury or a court can order you to produce damned near anything it wants. Being a jouralist (or a blogger) is no shield, or haven't you kids been watching the Plamegate/Libby trial?"
Deep Throat.
Honestly? Nothing. Your question is quite correct. Given the state of today's government, the politicians, the graft, the greed, the plutocracy, the abuse of power, by all rights the US government (and all three branches) should have been overthrown long ago as charged by the Declaration of Independence.
In reality? It's just like the court told Saddam when he asserted (correctly) that they had no true authority over him as the UN didn't sanction the US to remove a government. We were allowed in Iraq under the auspices of finding WMDs. The UN just happened to turn a blind eye when we took it to the conclusion. Anyway, when Saddam tried the,"You have no real authority over me" defense the court responded "We have you in shackles. That's all the authority we need."
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
He's protecting a crime. This isn't something like a whistleblower where revealing the source could cause more harm than good. He is refusing to turn over a tape that could have evidence of a crime, ie. a police officer's head was fractured. It seems like a clearcut good use of contempt of court, in my opinion.
Interesting he refers to Greg Anderson, from the Balco case, who is also in prison for not testifying about whether or not Barry Bonds took steroids. I'm surprised that the author didn't say that imprisoning him could have a chilling effect on personal trainers all over the US.
Josh has not refused to turn over the tape. Josh has demonstrated a citizen's concern over whom the tape be turned over to. Think rationally: Why is it so darned important for the US attorney to have the tape? What's wrong with allowing the judge to review it and then let the judge decide who gets it?
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
I think Josh Wolf's refusal to testify is important for a couple reasons: 1) You wouldn't know it from mainstream media these days, but journalists have the opportunity to be important counterbalances to unchecked government power via investigating and bringing otherwise obscure activities into the light for public discussion and, perhaps, correction. 2) One important tool in a journalist's arsenal that enables them to do the above is their ability to collect news without being seen as tools/agents of the government. Think of Bob Woodward and Deep Throat (aka Mark Felt) - Woodward went 3 decades refusing to name Felt because he'd promised him confidentiality. If journalists can be compelled to testify about what they've done and seen in the course of doing their jobs, people around them are less likely to be interested in being filmed, interviewed, etc. This is the reason many states have shield laws, which protect journalists' sources and unpublished work. The US attorney in Josh Wolf's case had to go through acrobatics to bring this case in federal court, because California has a shield law - the only reason it's in federal court is because a San Francisco police car that sustained a broken taillight during the protest in question was paid for partially by federal money - that's the only federal link here!
Who cares what the bad mean punks are saying while they're marching to bad mean music in the bad mean streets.
The rest of your post isn't even worth acknowledging. Check into a psyche ward if you have anger issues which are that heavy.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
If a man can claim with impunity that most blogs constitute some form of journalism, then this does not bode well for the future of citizen journalism.
What the earlier commentators miss is that journalists do have shield-laws to protect them for divulging their sources. This is so that the first amendment means something. This allows mud-racking journalists (few and far between in MSM) to protect their sources. For example, remember Mark Felt (aka. Deep Throat), the guy who brought down Nixon? Because he was talking to journalists, he knew that Woodward and Bernstein could refuse to talk under subpoena.
This is important if the press is going to be able to do their job and uncover corruption.
Now also think about this. What defines a "journalist" especially these days? A steady paycheck from an organization that owns a "newspaper" or a "tv station" or a "radio station"? If someone uses the public access station on cable to broadcast muckraking esposes on local politicians, does that make him any less (or more) of a journalist appearing on NBC or doing his own blog?
Think about Dan Gillmor. He no longer works for the Mercury News in San Jose, but he is reporting only on the internet. Is he now no longer a journalist?
Finally, how long is Josh going to be locked up? Are we going to allow an indefinite sentence? (Which in the U.S. is supposed to be illegal?). Are we going to make someone's refusal to talk about a "crime" result in a harsher punishment than the crime itself? Are we going to make it so that everyone is compelled to spy on and report the actions of their neighbor?
All the "law and order" types really need to think about the fact that civil society only respects "law and order" if everyone is equal. And journalists help find public corruption. Corruption which goes unpunished breaks down a society's respect for the law. "Journalists" or people who act as journalists by reporting to the public at-large, whatever their media, deserve the highest protection.
You're probably exposing the reason why the US attorney wants the tape before the judge, or the grand jury, is allowed to see it. The US prosecutor wants to be able to show edited fragments of the tape. Josh and his attorney are hoping that, if they judge is allowed to see the tape first, that will prevent the US attorney from butchering the truth (as they usually do).
You need to post that more.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
...videotaping this crime spree is the best idea we've ever had!
What we're seeing here is an overzealous US attorney who wants to be able to show fragments of the tape to the grand jury, while suppressing other segments, in order to selectively support only his side of the argument. Don't forget that the courtroom is not about justice. It's about two teams, with money and careers to maintain, who need to create legal briefs which will ultimately give them the win.
Josh and his attorney want the tape to be shown to the judge first presumably so that the judge can see the _entire_ situation. The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
It's very likely that the tape contains evidence which would show an escalation of events--unnecessary force or police brutality which initiated the subsequent violence. The US attorney, of course, would only show the subsequent violence.
Duh.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
A supoena should be for a specific evidence of a specific crime. The government should not be allowed to supoena all video of a protest on the off chance that someone somewhere committed a crime sometime during the protest. The government should definitely not be allowed to supoena all video of the protest simply to compile a list of people to "watch" or otherwise intimidate.
On the other hand, if you see a crime being committed and you don't want the government to be able to use your video when the crime goes to trial then you shouldn't take the video in the first place. If you're like "I firmly believe that these crimes are legitimate acts of resistance against government oppression" then you'd have to be an idiot to videotape the crimes in the first place.
I have to admit, I haven't read the article but my point is that whether it is legitimate to resist a supoena could go either way. There are legitimate reasons to contest a supoena but not all reasons are legitimate.
And this "blogger" may have filmed the commission of that crime.
The prosecutor (the US attorney) wants that film so he can take it to a grand jury to maybe indict those that committed that crime.
By withholding that evidence, this "blogger" is in fact obstructing justice.
Are prisoners in USA allowed phones in their cells? I thought smuggling phones into jails was a big problem.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You know I read the article before the comments, and I'm quite surprised to see how many comments here are dissing this guy and supporting "the man" on this one.
You guys are living in very scary times right now: illegal wiretaps, perpetual warfare, a criminal executive branch passing no-bid military contracts to stakeholders in the very same government... And it's a well observed phenomenon that journalism is under fire in the US.
What he did was certainly not in his own best interest, for sure. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his patriotism. He is making the tough calls at a time many journalists are asleep at the wheel.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
If this were a state supoena investigating the attack on a police officer, I would agree that he should have showed up. If it were a genuine investigation of an inury offense, it would be carried out by state law enforcement and involve a state grand jury. The fact that it's a federal investigation by a terrorism task force investigating a civil demonstration - that is frightening. Eevn more frightening considering the stretch the government used to call it federal.
What he is fighting for is to change exactly the sort of mentality people have that says when the government comes calling, the automatic answer is to give them what they want.
I thank God daily that I am not American. Please understand, I don't intend to bash Americans, but I am scared to death of the police state that is forming. Gitmo makes the Japanese internment camps of WWII look like quilting bees. It frightens me so much that I'd even move out of Canada just to get further away from that, except for people like Josh Wolf. He's being asked for the wrong information by the wrong authorities and he's standing up and saying no, this isn't right. People like him are the only thing that gives me any hope that maybe Canada can win the fight to keep this from spreading North.
And the government represents the people.
As such, the police and prosecutors act to protect society as a whole from criminals. The police and prosecutors are most emphatically not acting as citizens when they arrest someone. Or try to collect evidence of a crime.
So, when you compare them to "normal" citizens, you're comparing apples to oranges, and way off base.
And why do you think calling oneself a "journalist" should bestow special rights above those of the masses?
So you'd support war in the hopes of it creating peace? Where have I heard that before?
> One important tool in a journalist's arsenal that enables them to do the above is their ability
> to collect news without being seen as tools/agents of the government.
Requiring a journalist to testify in a trial doesn't make the a tool of the State, it just makes them American Citizens. Of course most mainstream journalists would reject that label, preferring to think of themselves as Priests belonging in a class above mere nation states.
I know you probably went to a government school and didn't receive much education about our form of government so I'll give you the five cent summary version.
In our form of Justice the accused has the right to face his accusers and compel their testimony under Oath. They have the right to compel both the presence and the testimony of Witnesses in their defense. The clauses in our Constituition laying out these Rights have a conspicious absence of an asterisk pointing to an exception for journalists. Our very important 1st Amendment says many things about Free Speech and a Free Press but does NOT include any sort of special exception for journalists testifying in trials. So no Press Shield law can pass constituitional muster, an Amendment would be required and even the current idiots in Washington would never muster the super majority of fools to do something that unwise.
Because a Press Shield law would do as much violence to the 1st Amendment as McCain/Fiengold did. The only way to enforce it would mean federal licensing of journalists, so you could show a potential source your papers proving you wouldn't have to testify. Unless of course you mean only the dozen or so 'household name' journalists would be protected.
> Think of Bob Woodward and Deep Throat (aka Mark Felt) - Woodward went 3 decades refusing to name Felt
> because he'd promised him confidentiality.
Nice thought but they didn't have the power to make any such promise, other than a promise to rot in jail if ordered to testify. Bob Woodward isn't an agent of the Court. Of course it was a different age, all of Washington was aflame with an abiding passion to get rid of Nixon and most of the case never went through the normal court system where any such order could have been issued. But yes, even in the crazy 1970's had a Federal Judge order Woodward to name "Deep Throat" he would have either gave up the name or sat in a cell a long time.
> If journalists can be compelled to testify about what they've done and seen in the course of doing
> their jobs, people around them are less likely to be interested in being filmed, interviewed, etc.
Again, what makes a journalist different from any other Citizen? If thee or me witness a crime we will be compelled to bear witness in court, why does the fact someone is being paid by Pinch Sulzburger change a person's obligations as a Citizen?
Democrat delenda est
Martyr! Martyr! Martyr!
<post type="Standard">g line>
<comment type="opening" style="witty"></comment>
<notice type="inequality_of_treatment" participant1="large companies" participant2="independents"></hint>
<rant about="conspiracy" cause="campaign_contributions"></rant>
<sigline URL="http://www.sigsRus.com/sigoftheday.asp"></si
</post>
sounds to me like he is in jail for ignoring a subpoena. While I agree that he should not be legally obligated to turn over the videotape, he is obligated to respond to the subpoena. This guy is just generating press for himself with this shell game, stating that he is taking a stand for journalism when he is really taking a stand for thumbing his nose at a subpoena. Even Hunter Thompson knew when he needed to show up in court. Ethically obligated to turn over the videotape is another discussion.
He's not uncovering corruption.
He's not some crusading for all of our rights.
He's not protecting some secret source that tells us how bad those in power are - there's no source here to protect.
He's covering up for a person or persons who tried to kill someone. And the entire video is relevant because it probably shows how out-of-control and reckless the protesters were - and that is evidence of criminality in the entirety of their actions - including attacking the police - whether you like it or not.
And you're putting him on a moral high horse? WTF? Comparing him to Deep Throat, equating him to uncovering criminal behavior in the government. Earth is calling, but I don't think you can hear.
What you're doing is trying to spin the truth that he's actually covering up criminal behavior by a bunch of snot-nosed psuedo-anarchists who managed to escape Mommy's basement for the weekend and go wilding.
Like I said, WTF is your problem?
...as well. You know, that whole disclosing one's evidence in the case to the other party so that they have time to review it, etc. etc. often exploited in TV series and movies by the prosecution/defense suddenly coming up with new evidence and the other party going "Objection! Your honor, we were not made aware of this new evidence" and the first party going "we only just got it - the other party is welcome to review it now." after which the other party either backs down or goes for it and the judge calls for a 5 minute recess blablabla.
Anyway. Point is - the defense, whoever that would be, would be able to show all those other parts of the video or the entire viewo or the parts of they video that THEY think will help their case best. If both parties do that - or, better yet, the entire video is shown - then I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever except that the human mind is fickle and negative first impression may stick around more than whatever the defense would be able to show to shed a new light on the events shown. But that's the jury/judge's human shortcomings that they are supposed to ignore and shouldn't have anything to do with the presentation of evidence.
And anyone else with evidence that could help prosecute a criminal.
I don't give a shit if you think you're a journalist or not.
no he's obstructing an attorney, there is a difference.
Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
I'm also surprised at the reaction of slashdotters. I think protecting confidential sources of journalists could be important to maintaining freedom. However this guy is protecting a video taken in the middle of the street in a major city. His sources couldn't have had any expectation of confidentiality.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
I agree with both of your other points though -- yes, I think that a judge signing for a punishment for someone later found innocent should be subject to the same punishment for that; and do not get me started on the whole "hate crime" idea!
Paul B.
If you and the judge disagree and you don't come around to the judge's point of view, you're going to jail. well.... yeah.... same situation, basically. Like the OP says: when the judge says "show up and testify", you show up and testify. Refusing to show up gets you jail time.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The "blogger" doesn't get to decide. That's not the way our system works. The prosecutor presents evidence of a crime to a grand jury, who then decides whether or not the suspects are indicted.
It's not the "bloggers" job to decide what the prosecutor wants. It's not the judge's job either. As such, it's nothing more nor less than an attempt to withhold evidence the prosecutor wants. And as the legal representative of the government - "society" - the prosecutor has the power to get that information. And that's all he wants - information. What's wrong with him having it?
If the entirety of the tape is important, the defense can show it.
And if the tape has evidence of police brutality, why doesn't he release that? Why wasn't that released immediately?
Your spin attempt makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is that the "blogger" doesn't want the perps who attacked the police to be charged.
Josh Wolf, in doing what he can to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, is a hero.
More people must stand up for what they believe in. So far, we've got Josh and Lt. Watada. Who's next?
For the 40 million Americans that do not have it.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Whether this guy is right or wrong is completely independent of his "status" as a journalist.
Freedom of the press is nothing more than the freedom to disseminate information. Classifying individuals as "journalists" (e.g. "the press") and giving them special status disenfranchises the rest of us (i.e. the "non-journalists")! If the only people who are journalists are those whom the establishment (government, media, the mob, or otherwise) deems journalists, then there is no such thing as free press. There is simply the official press which has the illusion of free.
pretty much nothing ever posted in YRO bodes well for the future of anything.
i disable sigs
> Josh and his attorney want the tape to be shown to the judge first presumably so that the judge can see the _entire_ situation. The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
That doesn't make much sense? A grand jury only decides who, if anyone, to indict with a crime, after which they get charged, etc. and tried with a 'petit' (smaller) jury who hear your case. After you're indicted, I don't think any of the same jurors are used to judge your case.
If you read TFA, you'll see that what he's worried about is that police will get the identities of the local anarchists who didn't necessarily do anything wrong and that that will set them up for future surveillance and whatnot. After all, the authorities have kept tabs on the membership of both peaceful and radical groups for a long time now, although I hope they're no longer doing some of the awful things they used to in the civil rights days.
So he's protecting a bunch of anonymous anarchists who were nearby when the cop was attacked--someone must've seen it, but he says that he was videotaping the other cop at the time (and there were only two, all told, according to his account over where he was).
As for the escalation of events, they describe that, too. Apparently there were only these two cops, he says that they were trying to drive down the street, but the protesters were in the way, so they accelerated a bit to get people to move, and that set people off. The one guy ran (and got videotaped) while the other guy got whacked over the head from behind. At least, from the account he gives.
What really makes me wonder, though, is given that he names the anarchist group that some of these people were from in the interview--won't the police just go investigate the whole group, now? I'm not sure that mention did them any favors, but all I really know about this is what I read in the article.
When ever they are after you to give them something or tell them something you have to hide untill the case involved is over. then they will most likely leave you alone.
Now I'm not unsympathetic to the fact that an officer has been attacked, but let's let's go over some of these details, and then talk about what "they" are trying to do. Let's remember that "they" in this instance is not the State of California, even though this skull-cracking happened to a state police officer. The feds have managed to involve themselves because of possible damage to a police cruiser, which the feds partially paid for. So, at the very least, this sounds like they want investigate the attack on an Californian officer by making a creative end-run around California journalist shield laws. An alternative possibility is that the feds might be using this as a pretense to gather the names of dissenters, as the journalist darkly suggests. Neither of these options sit terribly well with me.
And let's also not forget that the journalist wasn't the person who did the skull cracking. He has not been accused of any crime, yet he's the one sitting in prison. Ostensibly the reason for this incarceration is to encourage him to talk, yet he's been sitting there longer than any journalist in American history. So is this actually encouragement? Or is it instead punishment? (Last I checked, we weren't supposed to do the latter without a trial.)
we've already achieved the chameleon-like mobility of the race system. caste system is so passe.
in other news: your shit stinketh too.
Thought it might be useful to point out that the video footage Mr. Wolf did publish of the event can be found at:
http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/?p=76
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FAcrnudevo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhMfbeFgsic
It seems the court wanted the unedited footage...
http://www.justworksnh.com
Actually he offered the tapes to the judge and the judge didn't want to see them. He did put him in jail anyways. I think initially he refused but changed his position later and the judge said no. Go to jail.
What I don't understand is that the article says he's imprisoned for "protecting a source" which is the situation in the Judith Miller case. But from reading the article.. they want the video to basically help identify people that might've broken the law. They aren't "sources", they're part of what was happening in public while he was filming. If there are more private interviews on there that he's hoping to keep out of the courts, you'd think he could give all the unedited footage filmed outside, but I don't see any talk of such.
This seems more like a situation like a news crew doing a story and an accident happening behind them, then refusing to turn over that tape to help prove who (if anyone) was at fault.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
"Gasoline is nearly back to $2 a gallon."
d =17992830d =17992902
Still a bunch higher than when Bush took office. Big surprise that an oilman in the oval office led to higher prices.
Gasoline is nearly back to $2 a gallon.
Thanks to aggressive imperialistic foreign policies that piss-off the rest of the planet against 'mericans.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222080&ci
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222080&ci
5th Amendment:
"no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
If he claimed that specific video would be incriminating to himself, from my limited understanding, I don't see how they could force him to turn it over.
Any law school students or attorneys care to comment?
Libertas in infinitum
"What's the problem here?"
That the court of public opinion carries more weight than the real one.
The US economy is fueled by massive debt, both at the gov't level and personal level. Nowhere in the world does any country have that much credit card debt.
... the unemployment rate is a misleading number, chiefly because it is easily skewed. Per the BIT, it's defined as the ratio of people who say they are looking for a job over the active population. Who's looking for a job ... when there's hefty unemployment benefits as in France, many people without a job do have an incentive to tell the governement that they are looking. Contrast this with the US: what's the fucking point being "officially" looking since you don't get jack shit after a few months?
As for unemployment
So this is a bad metric. Here's a better one: the employment ratio. Divide the number of people working by the overall population in the 24-54(*) bracket. According to OECD it's 86.3% in the US, 86.9% in France.
Quite a difference?
(*) Why the limited range? So as not to penalize, for example, countries which subsidize higher education, versus those who don't and therefore have more people below 25 working.
See the comment above Susan McDougal:
d =17992146
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222080&ci
You forgot to close your and tags. The probably would have worked for IE, but I use FireFox, which renders SSS (Slashdot Style Sheets) more strictly than IE does.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
This isn't about denying a court order or the criteria for being a journalist or expressing ones views. The fact is, this is part of a strategy of power that is being implemented by the US Government right now that seeks to criminalize not actions but views and lifestyles. It is criminalizing alternative ways of living that aren't compatible with the dominant culture. It's trying to squash a movement that doesn't currently have a hell of a lot of power, but has a lot of potential power in the examples it is setting and the options it presents. So next time you go criticizing someone for refusing to submit to an absurd legal procedure (info on grand juries: http://www.fbiwitchhunt.com/gj.html) keep in mind that these kinds of things don't just happen out of nowhere, but in a very specific context. And please check your holier-than-thou attitude at the door if you can't even bother to read about the kind of state repression that's going on, while making statements that reflect your a priori acceptance of a legal framework adopted from a time when they thought mice grew out of cheese.
Whilst not an expert on the specifics, I believe most prosecuting attorneys are employees of the Department of /Justice/. The US Attorney is employed in the pursuit of justice (however laughably that is sometimes interpreted, rightly or wrongly).
Refusing to testify will only usually end up in a fine and an overnight stay at the local lockup, if you at least show up.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
dude was more than happy to SELL footage that suited his political viewpoint ie: making the cops look bad, but then refuses to let the jury review any footage that might go against his angle ie: making his 'anarchist' buddies look bad.
Jail sucks for anyone but he pretty much deserves it for refusing to help solve a crime he personally witnessed. But I guess all this media attention will make him a rich man in the long run?
Read what his lawyer says at the bottom. Essentially it boils down to a secret grand jury investigating an unspecified or maybe secret law and a judge with no jurisdiction issuing an order to testify when the crime and target of investigation is not given. That doesn't bother you?
If they wanted the tape they would just get a warrant and search his house. They don't do this because a) they can't and b) they don't care about the tape, they want to compel his testimony even though they have no right.
The situation is more like a news team reporting 'on location' and somebody they know walks past with an anti-bush sign. Then they get compelled to turn over the tape and identify and testify against them because the prosecutor is a Bush supporter. Actually that pretty much is what happened.
I only went through 2 of the 4 pages of comments, but didn't see the real reason whay this is a huge problem mentioned yet:
:) ] virtually every aspect of California infrastructure and life, that suddenly they can use that wedge of taken/returned money to claim jurisdiction of _any_ case that they want to.
The Feds are claiming jurisdiction because a SFPD police car was involve and the Federal government provides a small portion
of the funding for the SFPD, therefore the SFPD cars are federal property. All other parts of the case aside [he is one of "them", he's a jerk, he was going to sell it, he should just be a good citizen and obey, I love authority, etc]
this is exceedingly frightening prospect. It means that since the Feds take the tax money of California businesses and individuals and then return a small portion of those taxes which are then used for [literally
They paid for a part of the roads, the sidewalks, housing subsidies, parks and rec, state parks, waterways, coastal beaches. Crime on the beach, Fed. Crime on the roads, Fed. Etc, this should scare the mainstream media and the state government and they should both rally behind this guy.
BTW, he tried to show it to the judge - but it is clear that the goal is not to see whether he has the record of the crime in question or not, but to look for other things.
No and yes. Seems clear there were violations of California law. But it is FAR from clear there were violations of federal law, and it's a federal prosecutor that has subpoenaed the video. It's a federal judge, William Alsup, who considers Wolf in contempt. The subpoena comes from the joint terrorism task force. So I deem that the prosecutor alleges that "crime" of this (violent) citizens' protest was terrorism. That's poppycock. I think the folks who bashed the cop probably should be charged (by a California prosecutor) with battery. But these people are not terrorists; this protest got out of control, but it was not terrorism.
Wolf thinks the feds claim jurisdiction because they fund antiterrorist training for local police, so thus any crime against police officers is well nigh terrorism. Which is baloney. However, the JTTF might well be trying to sow terror among bloggers; they have me nervous. Tag this one ''potmeetkettle.''
If you read the interview you can read Josh's reasons why he thinks that he has been treated differently than Big Media journalists, and he has something to say. It is not clear that if an NYT reporter had done the same sort of thing that she or he would be imprisoned for so bloody long.
Anyway, there is much more moral ambiguity here than most of the posters so far have acknowledged: they are missing something.
$META_SIG_JOKE
My bad - page 1 was about $2 gas and page 4 was other stuff, but page 3:d =17992418d =17992330
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222080&ci
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222080&ci
...and I listened to Rush Limbaugh for five minutes. This blogger (no, I don't consider him a journalist) won't turn over the tape to the grand jury to determine what, if any crimes were committed..but he's fine with another judge seeing it? This isn't even a stand on any sort of morals or journalistic integrity (again, don't consider him a journalist); this is just some idiot not being willing to turn over a movie to one court, while saying he's fine with another judge seeing it. And yes, believe it or not, if you don't give testimony when subpoened you will go to jail, journalist or not. A small riot started (from what I saw fo the video) by a bunch of anarchists and he thinks that he has no obligation to turn evidence over to the courts? A crime happened right in front of him, on camera; this is completely normal and likely the judge gave him such a sentence because of his flippant attitude. What's laughable is that people here seem to think this is due to some "secret" court; which is not what a grand jury is. A grand jury simply is a panel of judges that examines the evidence presented by the prosecution when they attempt to bring charges in order to determine if the prosecution's case holds any water. There's a chance that the prosecution's case WON'T hold water; and in either case, any journalist protection laws don't apply in cases where crimes occur in front of the camera and all the grand jury wants to do is determine IF a crime occured; which is PRECISELY why it's not good enough that the judge who handed down the sentence sees the video, the grand jury has to see it FIRST. Now if you'll excuse me, thinking about this makes my head hurt, I need some ibuprofen.
What you both are overlooking is that the assault on the police officer is a California crime, not a federal crime. As I've argued above, I can't think of any federal crime at all that Wolf's video might have shown -- although the assault apparently is being labeled as terrorism. Which is absurd. Wolf doesn't want these people he might know to be disappeared off to Gitmo, deprived of their rights, and driven out of their minds, which is apparently what the feds do to suspected terrorists. (Never mind the "Oh, that was months ago! We are so over that now!") I think Wolf is the one with a decent justification for keeping mum, and it's the feds who are behaving unreasonably. If I were in his shoes I would be leery of even meeting with the federal judge.
$META_SIG_JOKE
no text
#1 - Someone who observes a crime = Witness
#1 - Videotape = Evidence.
#2 - Videotape in his possesion = Evidence in his possession.
#3 - Subpoena = Court Order
#4 - Disregarding Court Order = Contempt Of Court.
#5 - Contempt Of Court = Jail/The Big House/The Can/ The Clink/Up State/Up The River/The Pen/All-expenses paid vacation at the Fed Hotel
Add all the points together and you get:
(Jail) for (contempt of court) by (refusing a court order) to turn over (evidence of a crime) that (is in his possession) that (he witnessed).
What's so hard to figure out? The guy had evidence of a possible crime by either the police or protesters. Technically, he has evidence of a possible crime that the Feds want to investigate, like any law enforcement agency should be doing.
So what. Journalists are not above the law, and certainly not above the law when it comes to witholding evidence. He deserves to be in prison just as much as anybody else who 1) withold evidence of a crime from Authorites, and 2) Refuses to comply with the law.
He is in jail for violating the law. A violation of journalistic ethics? Pfff. Unfortunately for him, 'Journalistic Ethics' is NOT the law and does not dictate such. Freedom of the press means you can print whatever you want as long it is consistent with free speech and does not violate the law (You can't incite riots, print slanderous articles, or print nudity in a newspaper, etc.). He is not publishing anything - that is not the issue. He can publish whatever he wants.....nobody is arguaing against that and that is not why he is being jailed. It has NOTHING to do with publishing. The issue is that he is in possesion of a videotape that may contain evidence of the commission of crimes. Therefore, the judge has every right and obligtion, both ethically and legally, to force Mr. Wolf to turn over the videotape in question. And, by refusing to obey the order, Mr. Wolf he BROKE THE LAW.
So what the hell is he complaining about? It was completely his choice. 'Journalists Ethics' - Pfff. Is it ethical for a journalist to refuse to turn over evidence of a crime? Nope. Is it ethical for a judge to tell him to turn over the tape to the police for investigation of a crime? Yes. The government is trying to do its job the way it should be. It is being responsible. The police are trying to do their job. They are being responsible. The Feds are trying to do their job. Mr. Wolf is not doing his job by refusing the court order. His job is a journalist, and refusing to comply with the law is not a demonstration of 'Journalistic Ethics'. I don't think that selectively complying with the law to suit your beliefs is a demonstration of 'Journalistic Ethics', and I'm pretty sure it violates it. Ask Mr. Wolf if witholding evidence, contempt of court, obstruction of justice, and hindering an investigation are part of 'Journalistic Ethics'. Also, ask him if it is 'Journalistically Ethical' to selectively comply with the law.
He says that it is a violation of the Freedom Of The Press, yet he is violating the law by witholding evidence. Well, he is not publishing anything. He is witholding evidence. Since this isn't about something he published, it's not a violation of press freedom. He is the only one breaking the law. The Feds made the proper request, and a judge found that the request was legitimate and founded, and therefore signed it, and issued the supoena for the evidence. Unless there is a paperwork or procedural error, then he has no right to complain for being punished for not complying with the law. This isn't a case of the "Government is out to silence dissent and eliminate press freedom.". If it was, then we would all be in jail and not speaking freely in the papers or on the Internet. The vst majority of journalists comply with the law, yet *DON'T* wind up in prison. Hmmmmm.....
Lets give an analogy: You are at a protest. I beat you up. Someone videotapes the entire scene - protest and beating. The person videotapig it then sells footage of the pro
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
$META_SIG_JOKE
We've done away with the bill of rights... we now keep your civil rights on a roll. A roll that is squeezably soft, and absorbent, and lightly perfumed to leave your hinny smelling spring-time fresh. It's only fair... we've been wiping our hinnys on your rights for years... it's only fair that now you'll be able to do the same.
Genda
>> Two words: Judith Miller
>>
>
>well.... yeah.... same situation, basically. Like the OP says: when the judge says
>"show up and testify", you show up and testify. Refusing to show up gets you jail
>time.
Not even close!
Judith Miler is unique, the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read.
Some Follow-up
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
Look at it as a road. Justice is at the end. You're travelling along the road, the attorney for the justice department is behind you. Not pulling over so he can overtake isn't 'obstructing' anything, it's going about your own business and entirely neutral. 'Obstructing' would be swerving infront of him so he can't overtake. Not pulling over and insisting that if he wants to get there faster he can pull around you is the duty of a responsible citizen. Conclusion: Not actively helping is not the same as obstructing, if a third party wants to keep themselves out of both sides of a legal proceeding, they should be allowed to do so and, indeed, should be applauded for doing it.
Why SHOULD you drop everything when a court considering a case which you've previously had nothing to do with calls?
FGD 135
this will finally put to bed the idea that every jackass with a website is a journalist.
Probably most of the actual battle is about how much (extra-legal) authority is required to protect us from terrorism. BUT suppose we want to think about the question of bloggers getting 1st Ammendment protection.... The legal system is heavily weighted to protect attorneys and their economic status. That situation is impossible to change. Recognizing the situation seems to suggest that bloggers needing some 1st Ammendment protection need to form a cooperative whereby legal fees can be shared across a larger base in the interest of protecting everyone (think insurance). The press has the strength of a corporate structure to handle the legal fees. That does not necessarily protect the individual from jail time (Judith Miller), but it handles the cost of arguing in front of a judge. Remember too, nothing is going to protect you from charges of libel. I suspect the cooperative would not protect you either. If you are going to write an opinion, then you need to state it as an opinion. You need to identify your supporting evidence. If you are providing evidence and not issuing an opinion (rather leaving conclusions to others) then you are at risk for providing the source. It's better protection to separate the two. Provide the evidence and describe the situation that produced the evidence. In a separate blog, interpret it and offer your opinion. We have all gotten used to TV where the lowest possible common denominator usurps all intelligence. On TV News, we get this combined evidence, interpretation and opinion all mushed together. It's bad practice and bad for your mental health.
"If all the American people want is security, let them live in prisons." Eisenhower
Honda has manufacturing plants in the USA -- in Alabama, Ohio, South Carolina, Georgia, and others.
Companies like Ford and GM are cutting jobs and closing plants across the US, and opening plants in places like Mexico and India.
So, I'm sorry, what was your point again?
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Look, there is still no journalist shield law in place to protect Judith Miller's conversations. Reporters would really really like one. It is good for the freedom of information to allow for protection of sources for stories. And then you get to a line that has to be drawn. Who is a journalist? Could Josh be considered a journalist without MSM credentials?
Reporters want to be the 4th estate to the government, and all 3 other branches have zero interest in greater oversight. The courts don't want their proceedings televised. Congress doesn't want their business deals exposed to the light of day. The executive branch would classify the First Dog name and breed if they had the opportunity.
I don't mind the extra info or possible overload that added journalist protection brings. Until that day arrives, we see how journalists are trying to push the envelope and create a buzz that might translate into legislation. If they were smart, journalists would petition those monster media companies that own everything now and get some lobbyists up in that big round dome thingy.
"(Jail) for (contempt of court) by (refusing a court order) to turn over (evidence of a crime) that (is in his possession) that (he witnessed)"
..
(rest of bs deleted)
He posted the clips of an anti-G8 protest on his blog where anyone including the investigators could see it. He also offered to show the judge all the raw footage. If this is anything to go by it was the police who did the rioting. Is the subpoenae retaliation for Wolf for posting the video. The so called investigation and incarcaration of Wolf sends a message to anyone else who thinks they live in a democracy. You've got freedom of expression but only until you try and use it.
I've seen elsewhere videos of anti-G8 protests being brutally suppressed. One I personally witnessed was when the cops basically laid into the protestors and beat the crap out of them. Curiously enough they all had their badges removed, always a bad sign. The message must have gone out from on high, as the cops aren't normally as zealous.
was Re:Simple.....
davecb5620@gmail.com
"He has video .. which he refuses to turn over"
No and NO again. The video is on his blog and he offered to show the judge all the raw footage.
was Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:5, Republican)
davecb5620@gmail.com
The basic concern is that "the press" does not want to become an arm of law enforcement. The claim, at least, is that dragging them into legal proceedings hampers their ability to gather news and possibly makes anyone with a camera a target. I think that's a pretty weak argument. On the other hand, it's not nearly as weak as the argument for making this a federal case - that the SFPD may have recieved federal funds for the purchase of cars that were damaged. So I say free Josh, but not for any reasons having to do with his video.
This is all speculation, but my impression is that he really wanted to make a point about "the system". He has footage of policae abusing their powers and so on. Video is powerful stuff.
But I think he realized that video cuts both ways-- he may also have footage of protesters violating the law (note that he really downplays the vandalism stuff). Were he to release the tape, and it does contain footage of protesters assaulting police officers and damaging property, it would put his original edited story (I think the word he used was "newsworthy") in a completely different context. Police may have abused their powers, but it may have been motivated by extenuating circumstances.
Anyway, pure speculation. I may be reading more into this than there really is. I'm sure the big bad police just wanted to stomp on some protesters, right Josh?
I have no understanding of where this irrational fear of government comes form. Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not a dictatorship, and it's certainly not a police state.
It works hard to strike a fair balance between the rights of individuals and the security of the nation as a whole. While not perfect, for the vast majority of her 200 million citizens, it works. Whatever they are complaining about, the simple truth is that most Americans lead comfortable lives, with good prospects of education and employment (if one is willing to work hard). The vast majority have never seen war, nor starvation, nor privation. Nor are they likely to.
I guess those are easy circumstances under which to stand up, raise your voice, and complain, neh?
So while not a perfect system, it may be as close to perfect as humanity is capable of coming at this point in time. Say what you want, but I feel incredibly blessed to live in America. Despite her difficulties, I believe her citizens are some of the luckiest to ever draw breath on planet earth.
Of course, you're Canadian, so you know all of this already. You're one of the lucky "North Americans" as well.
In a free country you don't have to answer to anyone. The right not to speak is just as important as the right to speak freely. Bah! Screw it! You people don't want freedom. You* just want pink ponies and everybody to agree with you. You* made it quite clear over the last couple of days that you all have absolutely no idea of what freedom is. That it doesn't come conditionally. You either have it, or you don't. Believe me when I tell you, you don't have it. All you have is the police to protect you as long as you pay your taxes. You know what? So does China. Pay enough money, and you can have all the "freedom" you want. No matter where you are.
*editorial
What?
Except a book deal when he gets out of prison.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
Good grief man! Do you believe everything you read on the web?
Judith Miller was never "tried, convicted and sentenced to prison". She was jailed for contempt of court. Huge difference.
From the wikipedia entry on Judith Miller (which I believe a lot more than your "cited sources"):
In July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official -- later revealed to be "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff--on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for "twisting" intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity was revealed in a column by conservative political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.)
Also, the Alexandria City Jail (where Miller was jailed) is a vastly different place from federal prison.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
He says he doesn't want to "bear false witness" but by releasing only an edited version of the video, that's exactly what he's done. He doesn't want the entire story (or video) out there, only his version. Therefore, he's a tool. He's refusing a totally lawful court order (we can debate the merit, but not the legality), therefore he's a double tool. Pretty much all he has is a bunch of very politicized friends who will say he's doing the right thing, because they agreed with the aim of the protestors he took video of; and in San Francisco that may be enough. Would he be making the same claims if he had taken video of racists, say? I doubt it. He's protecting his pals, not any high journalistic ideals, but he's burning a lot of 'journalist gets the benefit of the doubt' mana to do it. Therefore he's a triple tool.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
The point is that, in CA, he would not be imprisoned, & CA didn't want the tapes that much anyway.. But the Feds wanted the tapes to build files on the participants, so they used a lie of "destroying government property", to jail him- IOW, they did and end run around a sovereign state's law. The problem with the Fed's claim is this- they reasoned (if you can believe this) that, since a local police car was damaged, and the Feds paid for part of it, they were entitled to charge Josh. Soviet Russia at its finest.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
How do you know about the big round dome?!? or lobbyists?!!! stay where you are, someone will aprehend^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmeet you shortly...
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Actually, the law has required reporters to turn over confidential sources in case of certain classes of crimes for *years* if not *decades.* I see no reason he shouldn't turn over his videotape; it shows a violent riot with physical attacks on bystanders, police, etc.
On one hand, I don't think this guy should be in jail. On the other hand, the anarchist "protestors" he's shielding are idiots and richly deserve whatever beatings they may receive.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Whilst not an expert on the specifics, I believe most prosecuting attorneys are employees of the Department of /Justice/. The US Attorney is employed in the pursuit of justice (however laughably that is sometimes interpreted, rightly or wrongly).
Justice is done by judges and/or juries, not by prosecuting attorneys. They represent the 'wronged' party, which in case of those working for the department of justice, is society as a whole.
This is hardly new or in any way unusual.
Do you know why at state run institutions like schools, religious teachings and symbols are forbidden? It's not because of the constitution (at least not directly) it's because such schools recieve part of their funding from the federal government, and therefore are part federal institution and therefore subject to the laws that govern the federal government (i.e. the first amendment).
Do you know why it is illegal for a private business to discriminate against you based on your race, religion or gender even if there are no state laws governing such discrimination? Because your business may recieve income from out of state residents and thus you are engaging in commerce between the states and thus subject to the regulations of the federal government.
This is just the next logical extention of the series of laws we've been passing since the beginning of this country. The people have asked that any government involvement with an item means that the government should have some jurisdiction over it, and so this is what you get.
There's an old saying about being careful what you wish for, it's a shame we didn't heed it before now.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It has long been argued that as soon as the federal gov started enacting taxes against individuals, that the freedoms we had began to erode.
Today, people often speak of 'private property'. Try this: don't pay your local school district taxes. You will quickly find out that who or what owns what.
Even more recent, the 'eminent domain' fiasco has further reduced our freedoms.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
I think they claim that the video has evidence of someone attempting (not succeeding) to set fire to a police car. According to the interview, Josh Wolf has offered to let the judge review the video himself to decide if there's any such evidence there. The prosecutors insist that it must be the Grand Jury that sees it, not just the judge working on Wolf's case -- why this would be isn't entirely clear (there's information the prosecutor doesn't want to give to the judge, but is willing to give to the grand jury?).
Another issue is that Josh Wolf doesn't want to be compelled to testify about the people in the video -- it's possible, for example, that he can identify some of them, even if they're wearing masks.
He can go around videotaping events like this in-part because he's trusted not to provide this testimony -- so this would seem like a classic case of a journalist trying to shield the anonymity of sources, just updated for the video/internet age.
And of course, one answer to the "why do they want it so badly?" is that they probably don't, they're just using this as a harassment tool. The government doesn't particularly like demonstrations to be covered by journalists, and they don't much like the idea of freelance "citizen journalists".
If anyone cares I just thought I'd mention that there's a huge disconnect between what most people mean by "anarchy" and what people who call themselves "anarchists" usually mean by it. (And given that, one might wonder why someone would call themselves an anarchist, but there I can't help you...) Anyway, the wikipedia article on Anarchism looks like a nice round-up of some of the different varieties.
In my experience, while the "libertarian anarchists" (aka the "right-wing" anarchists, or better, free market anarchists) like to speculate on how a society might be organized without government agencies, the more left-wing guys (e.g. the historical "libertarian socialists" for extra over-determined terminological fun) tend to be more pragmatically focused and usually seem like they'd be happy with a democratic socialist government (e.g. Sweden).
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I never said that you shouldn't stick your nose in if you see injustice and have evidence that could stop it, only that if you've not stuck your nose in on either side yet and the case doesn't concern you, you shouldn't have to when a man in a wig tells you to.
What if you get called to testify in a case where your testimony will be used to try and push through an 'evil' agenda? In that case you'd do better to do nothing than comply. Since, once you're in the witness box, you have to answer whatever your asked (unless the judge tosses the question) it should be entirely YOUR choice as to wether you enter the witness box at all. The defendant can choose not to testify at all, why shouldn't anyone else?
FGD 135
Actually, the press was an arm of law enforcement. The protections the mainstream media has now are mostly post-watergate. Before that, talking to a reporter was equivilant to talking to a cop in the eyes of the law.
There's a reason it changed to the current status, and if maintaining this requires changes to the way we handle compelling testimony, it may be required.
But who am I kidding? Like there's any chance of that happening. It's more likely that every recording device will have to be licensed and every second of footage submitted to a government agency for 'review' before the judicial system changes its ways.
Having read the article a couple of times I see Wolf as an anti-establishment type that likes to "buck the system". He had video tape that law enforcement felt was neccessary in an investigation of federal proportions and he REFUSED to cooperate. This means he goes to jail plain and simple. Wolf is trying to use a pseudo cover of passing himself off as a reporter, and might I remind you I never saw "professional journalist" mentioned with his name. This is a case of anti-establishment types trying to skew a story about some misguided political nutcase by trying to make him a martyr of sorts. It's amazing how people get worked up the moment they hear something about someone being arrested and suddenly it's unfair and the law breaker is turned into a victim. All he has to do is turn the video over and he goes home and its a non-issue. This guy Wolf is making a stand for something that makes sense in his own mind when in reality no one cares. I never heard of this until now and after reading the story I think that he is getting what he deserves!
Reality is for people that can't handle drugs. So do your part, just say no to reality!