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.
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
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
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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."
pretty much nothing ever posted in YRO bodes well for the future of anything.
i disable sigs
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.
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
#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....
>> 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
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.
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
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