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.
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
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?
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
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?
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
Ah, the old "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.
Care about privacy? Read this!
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.
> Apparently there's a disconnect between Josh's attorney, the judge, and the US attorney. I don't see
> anything unreasonable in the above text.
But YOU (nor I for that matter) weren't appointed to the Federal Bench. We don't decide what is the 'reasonable' way to deal with evidence, and neither does this Josh character. The Judge bangs his gavel and you either obey, appeal or suffer the consequences, any other result means no more Courts and anarchy reigns. Which is of course what most of the G8 protesters are into so that wouldn't be so much a threat as a wet dream for those asshats.
Democrat delenda est
He's prepared to provide the evidence - but he's offered to provide it to the presiding judge, and not to the attorney general. I'm not knowledgable about the US court system, but if it's anything like the Australian system, then it would be the court that requests the video, not the A.G (can someone clarify this?).
"I really can't see why journalists think they are some sort of fscking priesthood set above all other instituitions."
Well, it could be because journalism and a free press are one of the absolute keystones of a democracy, without which we'll quickly lapse into totalitarianism.
"you are mostly talentless hacks anyway."
So what? are you trying to say that because there are some bad journalists, that the profession as a whole has no merit? That can be said about anything!
"A grand jury or a court can order you to produce damned near anything it wants. "
From the interview, it sounds like it's less about producing the video for the court, and more about putting fear into non-government-sanctioned journalists. Now, every story has at least two sides, and I think he is pretty silly for not even being willing to appear in court, but it sounds like the A.G. is needlessly throwing his weight around too - in an attempt to intimidate people who are saying things that the government doesn't like.
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
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.
I think the judge should definitely be the one to make these decisions. If there were instances of abuse of power, use of excessive force, or police brutality which instigated or escalated the situation then there is no way that the US attorney should be allowed priveleged access to the tape. If the US attorney is allowed priveleged access to the tape, especially if he sees the grand jury first, he could use select segments to viciously sway their opinions. Indeed it's very likely that, along with the subpoena for the tape, there was an order issued banning the tape from being reproduced in any other form. If the US attorney holds the only legal (according to the court) copy of the tape then he could practically run away with editing and showing only what he wants.
That sort of behavior has no place in the halls of justice.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
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.
The point being that, if the situation has come this far, the US attorney will have filed a motion making it illegal for any of the tape to be published for many years. Nobody will ever see the truth until after this story is long forgotten (as is usual in today's police state).
The more I think about it the more this sounds like attorneys playing chess with Josh as the pawn. The more I see it in that light the more I agree: The prosecuting attorney, in no way, should be granted exclusive access to the tape nor should he be allowed to show it in anything but its entirety.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
> In any event, if you want people who have information vital to keeping government honest to come forward and
> share that information (ie leak it), you have to have protections against revealing their identities, otherwise
> they'll stay buried and you'd never know that Nixon was breaking into Democratic offices AND undermining the
> judicial process to his heart's content (for example).
No. Someone in the Nixon administration should have had the balls to break that one in public. Or find a journalist willing to protect it all the way to jail as an act of civil disobiedience. Because Watergaet was SO fudged up making laws to prevent something like that just doesn't work, either you trust that SOMEBODY at the top will have some balls or no laws can possibly save us.
> This is also why you CAN'T leave it up to the Government to decide who gets to be considered "the Press";
> that would make them the gatekeepers over the very people who are SUPPOSED to keep them honest...
Which is exactly why a press shield law at ANY level is a stupid idea, it turns the press into a special government annointed priesthood, which is of course how the mainstream press see themselves, but whatever, its wrong. The MSM is dying and the wall between journalists and the reading public is bluring; lets not enshrine bad 20th Century ideas in law.
Democrat delenda est
In agreement, I have to say blogger=reporter!
If you put yourself out there as a reporter of news, even with providing your own opinion/slant, you take the same risks as a reporter.
If you write an opinion or editorial piece and REPORT news in some way that is of interest to the justice system, the justice system has the right to ask more details of you in the course of the investigation of a crime. You as a (US) citizen can tell them what they want to know as a tool for their investigation or tell them to fuck off. Reporters have faced this issue for a long time. Just because you label yourself as a "blogger" instead of a reporter does not exclude you from a court order demanding your source. The choice is upon the individual. If I video a crime in front of my house and report it in any kind of mass media, I fully expect the cops to want all information I can provide in the pursuit of their investigation and for them to get a court order requiring me to provide that information. I can give them what they want or face a contempt of court charge for not supplying what the court ordered.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
It's called "Freedom of Speech", and "Freedom of Association" dude... In case you've forgotten (and you obviously have), those are supposed to be cornerstones of what your country stands for. You're also (of course), free to disagree with them, but at least recognize that they're as entitled to THEIR opinions as anyone else is, including you.
(Despite what you may think, your statement above isn't one of disagreeance, it's of invalidation; which is to say you're not indicating that you recognize their position, but disagree with them; you're saying that their opinion is invalid because it is different than yours. You're also using ad hominem attacks as support for your self-righteousness, which is strongly indicative of having a weak position/argument in the first place...)
-AC
> Well, it could be because journalism and a free press are one of the absolute
> keystones of a democracy, without which we'll quickly lapse into totalitarianism.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to avoid self-incrimination are the relevant cornerstones of democracy here.
Journalists wish that freedom of speech could be interpreted as the freedom of journalists to do whatever they want, but journalists are subject to the law just like the rest of us.
Here's a guy who's seen something a court is interested in hearing about. If he'd just seen it, or even just video-taped it, he'd be just another Joe like the rest of us, and we'd all agree he was guilty of contempt of court for refusing to talk. But because he happened to post some of his video to the internet, now he's a "journalist" with, apparently, an absolute right to tell a court to get lost.
The efficient operation of an equitable, impartial system of justice is another cornerstone of democracy, one journalists seem to conveniently "forget" when it suits them, like when they sympathise with the criminals.
Now the details of whether he's telling a court to get lost or a US Attorney are immaterial. He's been served a perfectly normal run-of-the-mill subpoena just like thousands of others who aren't journalists and who therefore don't have the benefit of a large, influential industry who see some self-interest in the case. If for, instance, it was a politician who was refusing to testify or produce evidence, the very self-same keystone-of-democracy-that-they-are media would be howling for his blood. Why should someone have special privileges in a court room simply because they publish?
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
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.
You're missing a big point - there's no defense allowed before most grand juries.
Good points - I temper my opinion :)
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
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
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.
#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....
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?
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