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
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!
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
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 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
Parent is insightful? Whether Josh was talking from his cell or from the phone in the hall or from an interrogation chamber is moot. While I'd like to give props to our system that at least lets the incarcerated communicate with the rest of is . . . I'll also have to condemn the same system for jailing Mr. Wolf in the first place. I think it would be nice if we could retain the ability to criticize other countries (China? Cuba?) for suppressing free speech while staying far from hypocrisy. As long as we have political prisoners behind bars we tarnish our much touted reputation for freedom and liberty.
As stated in TFA by Mr. Wolf's lawyer, our courts are for investigating innocence and guilt in committed crimes . . . not for finding out if a crime was committed in the first place.
Mod me down for ranting. Mod parent off-topic (or funny, I suppose) please.
"If you're not having fun right now, you're wasting your time."
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
our courts are for investigating innocence and guilt in committed crimes . . . not for finding out if a crime was committed in the first place.
Of course they are. A primary function of the courts is to interpret the law. In other words, the law says X, the person did A as established by the evidence at hand, does A actually fit X or not? Since laws are written in human language they are ambiguous and it's the job of the courts to figure out if the actual situation fits the law or not.
A grand jury, part of the court system, exists solely to gather evidence and determine if it was likely that a crime was committed.
You seem to be under the impression that in a trial the facts of the crime are fixed and the only question is the identity of the criminal. This is not how the system actually works.
#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....