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.
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
I could be totally wrong. Maybe a subpoena is a direct request from the US attorney which bypasses the judge and the court altogether. I doubt it though.
I don't practice in that jurisdiction, and I don't practice criminal law, but I know around here attorneys can issue subpoenas on their own. The judge has ultimate authority though, so you can move for a protective order if you object to the subpoena.
He was subpoenaed.
He did not grant the request of the subpoena.
According to Amendment 5, Bill of Rights, it says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Due process was made, and he has temporally lost his liberty by being put in jail until he grants the subpoena.
This is how courts should be ran. There's nothing unfair, or evil about this situation.
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.
Tell that to Judith Miller, who was threatened with criminal contempt for doing what you say is protected.
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?).
Why illegal?
But criminal contempt can carry life in prision.
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.
You don't need UN sanction to remove a government. Look at Bosnia circa 1998.
The opposite of progress is congress
What? Unemployment at record lows? The record post-world war II is 2.4%. The current unemployment rate is 5% (both according to the BLS). Even in the last decade the record is 3.6%.
Of course, one has to wonder about the sustainability of american consumer spending (considering the average american spends 101% of what they earn) and incredible trade deficits. Interest rates have got to adjust at some point... and as goes capital so goes labor.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
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.
Doesn't anyone ever read TFA at /.
He said he didn't witness any crime involving the police, and was not filming the cop who apparently had his skull fractured. He is willing to show the judge the entire tape, so it is unlikely he is lying about seeing the assault on the officer. So, AFAIK he IS NOT witholding evidence of an assault. What he most certainly IS holding however is a tape that contains the faces of many protestors which in our current political environment almost automatically makes you a target of the current administration. Why a FEDERAL TERRORISM AGENCY needed to get involved tends to confirm that Bush, Inc. is standing by their "you're either with us or against us" mentality. These are the people that infiltrated nefarious quaker terror cells, decided reading your mail (electronic or otherwise) is "a-ok", decided spying on citizens was a good idea, treat science as fiction and pseudo funadamentalistism as fact, handed over our treasury to friends, invaded a sovereign nation without justification or provocation, left people stranded after a major disaster, and have generally fucked this place up. And these are just some of the many wonderful documented things they've done for us so I think Josh is pretty fucking sane to assume giving the federal prosecutor exclusive access to the video is probably not a good idea.
Maybe if Bush and company hadn't snubbed their nose at the world and crowned themselves king or had done ANYTHING that was good for the country I would be less cautious about their motives but as time drags on it seems pretty clear that unless you're making seven figures or more a year you are an insigificant turd that means nothing to them... and that's 99% of the nation. Whose side on they are anyway? They're supposed to work for us, not against us, and certainly not treat protestors as terrorists. As bad an analogy as it may be, Bush reminds me a bit of the Sadam character in the Southpark movie. Shits hitting the fan and he just tells us all "relax, buddy! take a load off!". To hear him speak you would think everything is fine, which it certainly is not.
No. He is protecting the identities of the nonviolent protestors who are also pictured on the video, whom the feds would like to have identified. And he is being jailed by a federal judge over a matter that should not involve the feds. This protest is apparently being called "terrorism," and that is the reason the federal prosecutor is involved. That sounds to me like a load of nonsense. The violence should be solely a matter of California law, not federal law. Considering what the US does to suspected terrorists, even its own citizens, I cannot blame Wolf for wanting to protect those he filmed from such horrors. I think Wolf is standing up for justice.
At the same time I hope California is successful in investigating this clash with the police, and I hope they bring the guilty to justice.
$META_SIG_JOKE
>> 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
The US is currently ranked 53rd in the world for Freedom of the Press. Mozambique rates higher than the US. Source
The US was tied with Greece for 31st in 2003. Source
It could be said the US people are also too afraid of the terrorist boogyman to give a shit about losing their rights.
And Canadians aren't the only ones uneasy with the US.
MUNICH, Feb. 10 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin, in some of his harshest criticism of the United States since he took office seven years ago, said Saturday that Washington's unilateral, militaristic approach had made the world a more dangerous place than at any time during the Cold War. Source
Happens in the US, too.
People lacking tolerance tend to want to silence their critics and views they disagree with or don't understand. It just happens to be easier to do if you're in a position of power.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
In other words, the courts aren't meant to go, "I have no idea if there's a crime here or not, let's look at the evidence and see." They are meant to resolve the issue, "I believe the very specific crime X was committed. Here's my evidence." A grand jury, part of the court system, exists solely to gather evidence and determine if it was likely that a crime was committed. THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Grand juries are not tools for finding evidence (not to say they aren't used that way), but for determining whether there is sufficient evidence to go forward with a full trial. Did you even *READ THE LINK YOU POSTED*? It listed the activity you are defending as a criticism of the grand jury, and that the purpose of the grand jury is precisely the *OPPOSITE* of what you posted.