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.

Comments

Honestly

[Bifurcati]

Despite the scare mongering in TFA, the bottom line is he was subpoenaed for a video that might have been possible evidence in a (possible) serious crime. They're investigating a violent protest - a policeman (apparently) had his skull cracked, for goodness sake. I don't care how pure your protest motives are, that sort of thing is never appropriate. (Well, okay, maybe as an absolute last resort for overthrowing a government, but I don't think we're there yet.)

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.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something...

[nomadic]

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.

Re:Question.

[Creepy Crawler]

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.

Re:This is really bad because he is a journalist

[EvanED]

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.

Re:*choke*

[baldass_newbie]

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.

Re:*choke*

[Valar]

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.

Re:I'm actually quite surprised

[LandruBek]

protecting the perpetrators of a serious violent crime.

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.

Re:The fact that he's a blogger is beside the poin

[grimwell]

>> 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.

Testimonial privileges require a court to weigh the government's evidence as to why they need her testimony. Yet Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison based exclusively upon written evidence from witnesses whose identities and testimony were kept secret from her and her lawyers. They were given no opportunity to defend her against, question, or rebut the secret evidence the courts relied upon exclusively in convicting her. Indeed, a full eight pages of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision discussing and analyzing this secret evidence was redacted from the published opinion.
Source

Some Follow-up

Feb. 7, 2006 Significant sections of a previously redacted judicial opinion were released Friday after an appellate court ruled that certain information about grand jury testimony in the CIA leak investigation is no longer secret.

Dow Jones Inc. had filed a motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to release eight redacted pages from Judge David S. Tatel's concurring opinion in a February 2005 court ruling that then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matt Cooper must testify before a grand jury that was investigating who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the press.

Judge Tatel, in one of three concurring opinions written by the three-judge panel, found that there is a common law privilege but that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had overcome it. Tatel explained how Miller's testimony was critical to the investigation, how the grand jury had exhausted all other available resources, and that the public interest favored compelling her testimony. In doing so, eight pages of his decision were sealed from the public to preserve grand jury secrecy and to protect classified information.

The same three judges replied to Dow Jones' motion Friday and allowed large sections of Tatel's decision to be released, stating, in a decision written by the court as a whole, "we are satisfied here that there is no longer any need to keep significant portions of the eight pages under seal. Libby's indictment, now part of the public record, reveals some grand jury matters, and we see little purpose in protecting the secrecy of grand jury proceedings that are no longer secret."

Re:Frightening reasons

[grimwell]

Where do you get these silly ideas? Police state? The US is still THE most free nation in the world.

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

You don't give a shit about losing rights within your own borders because you're too worried about the boogyman to our south.

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

 

I can be arrested simply for voicing unpopular views or beliefs

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.

Re:From his jail cell??

[node 3]

You've got this all mixed up. TSAG was saying that courts aren't supposed to search for crimes.

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.