Blogger Freed After 226 Days in Jail For Contempt

frdmfghtr writes "Over at CNN is a report that a blogger has been freed after spending 226 days in jail — a record for a journalist held in contempt. 'Wolf had been found in contempt for refusing to obey a subpoena to turn over his video from a July 2005 protest during the G-8 economic summit where anarchists were suspected of vandalizing a San Francisco police car. One city officer was struck during the rally and his skull was fractured ... California's shield law allows reporters to keep sources and unpublished material secret. But there is no federal shield law protecting reporters from federal investigations. The National Writer's Union, which represents freelance writers, said in a statement that Wolf should never have been jailed. "The abuses visited on Josh and other journalists are part of an effort by governments at all levels to control the volume, flow and content of the information that reaches the public," the union said.'"

Comments

Excuse me but

[timecop]

Since when are "bloggers" considered "journalists"?

Re:Excuse me but

[phalse phace]

Journalist: a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events.

Re:Excuse me but

[phalse phace]

D' Oh! Hit submit too soon.

What I meant to post was....

Journalist: a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events.

Blogger: a person who keeps a Web log (blog) or publish an online diary

Re:Excuse me but

[Anonymous Coward]

Since web sites became the most prevalent paper for news distribution. Considering the consolidation of the mass media, and that it is perfectly legal for them to falsify news, it's not a moment too soon.

Re:Excuse me but

[Seumas]

Since they decided that's what they wanted to be called. Just like someone who sells crab grass to cure a runny nose wants to be considered a doctor. So apparently any time you don't want to tell the authorities something that someone else told you, all you have to do is say "but I'm a blogger!".

So, they kept him locked up in contempt until his senses caught up with his fat ego. I would suggest they do the same to all the other bloggers who think that they're Walter Fucking Cronkite, just because they have a textarea box in their browser that they spew their oh-so-unique thoughts into.

Re:Excuse me but

[ksheff]

By that definition, Anna Nicole Smith would be considered a journalist since she kept a diary.

Re:Excuse me but

[Easy2RememberNick]

So anyone who writes down words is a journalist? That's a rather broad definition.

  I'd say it should only be a person who has some sort of formal education in journalism (ethics, critical thinking etc.) and does it as their sole occupation.

  Maybe the question should be who is not a journalist.

Re:Excuse me but

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Right, just not a professional journalist. I play piano, which makes me a musician. However, I don't play for money, so I am not a professional musician.

Re:Excuse me but

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of professional journalists do not have a journalism degree, nor should there be a requirement for one.

Re:Excuse me but

[guruevi]

You're getting it all wrong. Let me tell you why: So apparently any time you don't want to tell the authorities something that someone else told you, all you have to do is say "but I'm a blogger!".

You don't have to tell the authorities anything, anytime. It is the right to remain silent and everything you say can and will be used against you clause of the rights read to you when you are arrested, it's in the constitution, it's in many other laws.

Journalists are anyone who run newspapers, write for newspapers, or create a piece to be published in a newspaper. Newspapers can also be online, like blogs could be considered the school newspaper, not the best, but still enough for the journalists to write their story in. Do you think that Walter Cronkite cared? No, it was probably just a job where he had a little textarea on his computer screen where he could spew his thoughts or observations about what happened.

Now, the case of point is, if I report on our oppressive government, I should be able to publish that without any reproof from them. If people read what I say they can agree, care, not care, that's up to the viewer/reader and the journalist just hopes that it will have some impact to work against our oppressive government. Now if I do the same thing, but I get put into jail for it, that's not good, since you can't read it nor agree/disagree with my opinion. The government can keep on killing people everywhere and keep spying on us without any exposure, that's not a good idea, since if a person or body of persons thinks they can get away with something, it will become more behaviour than once-in-a-while.

The problem with this person was, that the government tries to spy on us by collecting background information on the leaders of peace-rally's and other conventions of people (which is by the way totally constitutional) so that in the future, might that certain $group-for-$right become big and a threat to the oppressive government (trying to overthrow it or something, which is again, constitutional), they can eliminate it silently and keep on doing their dirty deeds thus undermining the effectiveness of the constitution which people died (and still die) for protecting. Yes, it's our right (empowered by the constitution) to organize and throw over the ruling government and install a new president.

The other problem was, that the legal way apparently wasn't good enough for our dear government, so they tucked him away, hoping it would cool off and he would turn over the 'evidence'. He kept on saying no, he worked with the government as much as possible, even offering the judge to decide whether or not the evidence was to be overturned. Why was that? we can only speculate. Was it not in the governments best interest to let the judge decide? Was there actually no evidence, and were they just looking into collecting more data on our good citizens? Was there certain police action involved that they didn't want the world to see?

Your arguments are moot. We have the right to become a journalist, whether we write for the NY Times, the local paper, a school paper or an online paper, we have the right to observe our governments actions and criticize it. We have the right to remain silent and not incriminate ourselves or the people we interview, so that they, if they are working on a secret plan to overthrow the government, have the opportunity to do so and not get shut down prematurely by 'accident' or other means (being marked as terrorist and shipped of to a country no-one ever heard of).

Delicate Balance

[Baricom]

Balancing the rights of journalists and the need for information by the legal system is extremely tricky, and to be honest, I'm not sure where the balance should lie in this case. My gut instinct is that the blogger should turn over the video, but part of me is yelling "slippery slope" inside.

The most obvious standard for turning over material would be "criminal activity only," but that isn't liberal enough -- what happens when the alleged act shouldn't be a crime to begin with? (See, for example, the PATRIOT Act and DMCA, in many cases.)

Re:Delicate Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it is difficult to determine the point where someone should have the shield protection of a journalist vs. the requirements of a citizen to cooperate with law enforcement (meaning that you have to report relevant information about a crime that you have witnessed when you are asked under oath). If we said that any blogger could have protection, then someone who blogs about cats would have protection in this instance. I would say that the only blogs that should have protection are the ones that are relevant to the topic at hand and their content would suffer if they revealed sources. This is not the case for a blogger taping a random anarchist rally (unless he or she was protecting the source that tipped off the location).

Re:Delicate Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Balancing the rights of journalists and the need for information by the legal system is extremely tricky, and to be honest, I'm not sure where the balance should lie in this case.

Little bit of of torturing have never hurt anyone. I think bloggers should be waterboarded and sent to Egypt or Israel for a two week vacation before being endlocated to holiday camp Gitmo.

Re:Delicate Balance

[aussie_a]

I don't see this as a case of what journalists should be forced to do, but a case of states rights versus federal rights. The state says he doesn't have to, the fact the state can come along and say "we don't care what your laws are, we'll do what we want" is not a good thing.

Re:Delicate Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

You can start with Michelle Malkin, Charlie Johnson, and the ilk.

Re:Delicate Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Markos and Atrios!

Re:Delicate Balance

[Nadsat]

I don't feel he is just some fighting some blind cause. It was more than a matter of simply turning over the tape. Below, words from his blog - http://www.joshwolf.net/

Contrary to popular opinion, this legal entanglement which has held me in Federal Prision for the past eight months, has never been about a videotape nor is the investigation about the alleged attempted arson of a San Francisco police vehicle as the government claims. While it is true that I was held in custody for refusing to surrender the tape and that the justification for making a federal case out of this was the police car, things are not always as they appear. The reality is that this investigation is far more pervasive and perverse than a superficial examination will reveal.

When I was subpoenaed in February of last year, I was not only ordered to provide my unedited footage, but to also submit to testimony and examination before the secretive grand jury. Although I feel that my unpublished material should be shielded from government demands, it was the testimony which I found to be the more egregious assault on my right and ethics as both a journalist and a citizen.

As there was nothing of a sensitive or confidential nature on my video outtakes, I had no reason to withhold their publication once I had exhausted all my legal appeals. When that point arrived I had already spent three months behind bars. I was advised by my legal team that publishing the video would not lead to my release; instead it would indicate to the court that my imprisonment was having a coercive effect even though it was not.

This hypothesis was verified when one of my attorney's inquired whether the Assistant US Attorney would accept the footage in lieu of my testimony, he was told that the video alone would not suffice and that the US Attorney would accept nothing less than my full compliance with the demands of the subpoena. Things change.

When the judge came to realize the support for my cause was growing and that I was unlikely to waver anytime soon, he ordered both parties to meet with a magistrate judge in the hopes we could reach a solution amenable to everyone. After two rather strenuous sessions of mediation, we at last came to an agreement that not only leaves my ethics intact but actively serves the role of a free press in our so-called free socieity.

In the words of Justice Douglas, "The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring fulfillment to the public's right to know".

Re:Delicate Balance

[vertinox]

This guy didn't want to give up asshats that torched a police car? Rot in jail.

The real question you should be asking is why Federal Tax money is being used to pay for Local State police cars in the first place? Original crime or no, that in itself is wrong.

Re:Delicate Balance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The most obvious standard for turning over material would be "criminal activity only," but that isn't liberal enough -- what happens when the alleged act shouldn't be a crime to begin with? (See, for example, the PATRIOT Act and DMCA, in many cases.)

Simple. Obey, and lobby to change the laws you don't like afterwards. It's legal, it's safe, and it encourages diversity among the political environment.

Hell, look where the passive resistance approach to copyright law has gotten us. The RIAA is extorting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H suing people with bugger all evidence, and still manage to keep the moral higher ground in many circles!

Re:Delicate Balance

[billcopc]

Because the local jurisdictions can't afford their own crap, that's why. I live in a big city, not the biggest but definitely in the top ten in Canada. The police here are a joke. Hell one time I had a cop refuse to help me deal with a thief because they were more scared of the guy than I was. They're 98% traffic cops, and 2% mob-fearing rookies. They generate so much "income" from fines that they could probably build a ten storey solid-gold police monument, yet they still whine about being underpaid and they suck federal cock for a bigger budget every year. There's something wrong with the system, and the solution isn't higher fines or less cops.

You know what I would like ? I would like a police system that is COMPLETELY paid through federal funding. Take away the business aspect of generating income and let them focus on doing their goddamned job of protecting the peace. And give them a friggin' raise while we're at it, it makes no sense than a worthless office drone tabulating political contributions should make more money than someone who puts their health and safety at risk on a daily basis to ensure the safety of others. Police officers are supposed to be a public service, people we pay to keep crime under control. Maybe if they were paid decent wages, we could be a little more selective about who we entrust with the safety of others. Maybe take that thief-fearing 21-year old 5'2" little girl off the night watch and sit her weak ass in the mail room, had she gone in the guy's house, she would have been the one in need of saving and I've got enough pussy on my hands as it is.

Re:Delicate Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Canada you moron, the federal government isn't supposed to do that in the states. The whole 10th amendment and "police powers" being reserved for the states thing. The federal government controlling the funding for states could, I don't know, have serious consequences? You familiar with the word "history", ever look into it? It's a great guide on roads society should not go down.

Re:Delicate Balance

[aardvarkjoe]

Ah, yes, the good old "let's change the subject to something completely unrelated" defense.

Re:Delicate Balance

[russotto]

Simple. Obey, and lobby to change the laws you don't like afterwards. It's legal, it's safe, and it encourages diversity among the political environment.

And the only party gaining from that approach is the powers that be. Lobbying to change the law is completely ineffective (because the other side has more and better lobbyists), and those who support the law are happy that their coercive laws are being obeyed, and nothing changes. "Obey the law and work to change it" is the RIAAs way of saying "Let them eat cake".

If the law is broken, at least those who got it put in place are denied some of its benefits to them. If it is broken more or less openly, they also lose their appearance of being in control. They are too powerful to be defeated, but by breaking their laws, they can be denied total victory.

Re:Delicate Balance

[billcopc]

I'm not familiar with history, at least not american history. If it (sort-of) works in Canada, why wouldn't it work in the states ? Why is federal police funding such a big no-no down there ?

Re:Delicate Balance

[Hutz]

So, the public's right to know is protected by allowing him not to testify as to what he saw? This case was never about protecting sources. This was always about him not wanting to have to comply with a law that applies to everyone. If you witness a crime you can be supoenaed to testify. Press covering a public event have no exemption because they stick a "press" sign on their hat.

Re:Delicate Balance

[rtb61]

Passive resistance is by not unnecessarily breaking law but refusing to obey it. That distinction is important, rather than overt aggressive acts, the more passive acts of peaceful resistance are far better.

Whether it is by passively obstructing the streets in protests or by refusing to divulge information or by refusing to keep secrets, all a valid methods of maintaining both your own personal integrity and human dignity, anything else is just slavery to fear. Life and liberty are not just political marketing slogans they are something to be struggled for, and that struggle never ends.

It is sad that it still needs to happen, even in supposedly modern democracies, but the sacrifices you make today means that future generations will not have the make even greater ones. Failure to resist, means not only selling your freedoms (even if you do loose yours for a while) but also the freedoms of tomorrow's grand children (else they will loose theirs permanently).

IN UNRELATED NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

More Videos Mocking Thai King Posted on YouTube

Although YouTube yanked a video mocking the king of Thailand, the military regime currently running the country continues to block access to the video-sharing website. The reason: the prompt posting of at least two additional videos mocking the king. Minister of Information and Communications Technology Sittichai Pookaiyaudom said that YouTube will continue to be blocked "until all the offensive clips have gone." However, today's (Friday) Bangkok Post observed that the ban "now seems to have touched off a firestorm of web-based retaliation that could see rapid escalation of offensive references to the monarchy on the Internet."

Please people, let governments of the world know this shit will not fly but for the short trip to fly back in their own faces. More blogs. More videos. More freedom.

cant trade...

[ranga_the_don]

He can't trade in "freedom to speech" to something else...

When your news content model consists of merely...

[Anonymous Coward]

...pasting other people's ORIGINAL writing, you are not a journalist. Generate ORIGINAL content, on a regular basis, and then you can be considered a journalist. Otherwise you are a mere plagarist.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting? Seriously? He was jailed for something quite related to his blogging (I assume he was video taping the event in his capacity as a "journalist" for his blog). He was /not/ however jailed for driving, so your suggestion is retarded.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Mr Jazzizle]

Because, as a blogger, he'll want all the freedoms of a journalist, but he's complaining that he's getting the short end of the stick in this particular situation. So, people can either argue that he's not a REAL journalist, so he shouldn't of been held in contempt for keeping information secret, or that everything is fair because he gets all the rights of a journalist, so he gets the responsibility of a journalist, as well. That said, I think it's silly to force someone to show video they have, but also think that it's silly to keep it from the court, unless he's trying to keep it from the court to his own advantage.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Jimmy_B]

Because his arrest was a direct consequence of him posting a video of a protest on his blog. A grand jury wanted him to release the entirety of the video so they could unmask some of the protesters, but he refused. The thing is, California has a law which says they can't do that, while the Federal government doesn't respect that.

Government control?

[Mr Jazzizle]

It's a court asking to see video of a crime so that they can arrest some people for bashing an officers head in. This is NOT the same thing as the government suppressing journalism or controlling what information reaches the public as this is spun to sound. No one is infringing on the journalist's right to publish what he wants, they're asking him to show them evidence that could lead to the arrest of criminals.

Re:Government control?

[pembo13]

I suppose you don't get the part where journalists feel that they need to honour the trust of privacy between themselves and their informant. Disagree with that if you must, but what you're saying doesn't seem relevant here.

Re:Government control?

[Mr Jazzizle]

Does the journalist have to reveal their source to show the video to a court? Or are you saying that trusting someone includes keeping evidence from police? I think that's iffy. But I absolutely agree that journalists should be able to keep their sources secret, but what has that got to do with their information, especially evidence in a criminal case?

Re:Government control?

[Harmonious Botch]

Informant? What informant? As GP said: "It's a court asking to see video of a crime so that they can arrest some people for bashing an officers head in." If there was an informant - a fact I don't recall even though I RTFA - it is a completely separate issue.
Sorry, but it is parent post that is relevacy challenged.

Re:Government control?

[azrider]

I suppose you don't get the part where journalists feel that they need to honour the trust of privacy between themselves and their informant.

Informant? What informant? He was the one who shot the videotape. This takes him out of the realm of journalist and puts him squarely in the position of witness. As such, the "shield" journalists should be provided is irrelevant. No journalist (real or imagined) can or should have the right to evade the requirements of being a citizen by claiming a shield where one does not (and should not) exist. If Mr. Wolf had received the video from someone who was involved in the fracas, he might have had a claim. Instead, he cried "I am a journalist" while deciding not to follow the clear legal requirements involved in being a witness (this is assuming that he only observed, not participated). If he was a participant, his fifth amendment rights, not first amendment were the appropriate argument to use. In short, whether or not a "blogger" is a "journalist", no shield exists that prevents a citizen from the duty (ethically and morally) to provide available evidence of a crime which happened while they were observing it.

Re:Government control?

[Watson Ladd]

If you watched the tape in question you would see that there is nothing of interest on it.

Re:Government control?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"It's a court asking to see video of a crime", which is wrong, which you'd know if you RTFA.

"This is NOT the same thing as the government suppressing journalism or controlling what information reaches the public as this is spun to sound. "What this is is wanting to identify the people who were legally protesting, so that official and unofficial lists are updated. It would have a chilling effect, though.

"...they're asking him to show them evidence that could lead to the arrest of criminals."Repeating this doesn't make it true.

Re:Government control?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"It's a court asking to see video of a crime so that they can arrest some people for bashing an officers head in." If there was an informant - a fact I don't recall...

That the video was of a crime is also not a fact.

Re:Government control?

[Millenniumman]

Vandalism and assault are not legal protesting.

Re:Government control?

[Dare nMc]

I don't know the details either, but it does sound like he was doing a piece on a organization, and they may have invited him to the scene under the assumption that he is a journalist covering the group.
regardless it didn't sound like he was being asked to testify on what he saw that day, they had witness to that. Sounds more like they wanted his background on the people involved.

Re:Government control?

[Keebler71]

I suppose you don't get the part where journalists feel that they need to honour the trust of privacy between themselves and their informant. Disagree with that if you must, but what you're saying doesn't seem relevant here.

and I guess I missed the part where:

• carrying a camcorder to a riot makes someone a "journalist" - even if he has a website.
• journalists have a constitutional right to protect their sources.(hint: read the 1st ammendment again - it says they can print anything they want - not that they can shield their sources)

Re:Government control?

[gdrumm0356]

I tried, but it required Quicktime which isn't on my system, because of MY security concerns. He could have ANY number of exploits on his webpages. QT seems to "open?" every QT item on the page...

National Writer's Union has it backwards here

[NaCh0]

"The abuses visited on Josh and other journalists are part of an effort by governments at all levels to control the volume, flow and content of the information that reaches the public," the union said.'"

Except in this case Josh is the one trying to hide information. If that tape got out the "peaceful" protestor's PR spin of doing nothing wrong would be shattered.

Journalist?

[gogojcp]

He was not a journalist, and he was not protecting a source. He was a citizen who refused to cooperate with a police investigation. Not a hero, probably just another victim of his own fantasies and ignorance of what freedom of the press actually means.

Ultimately he was only a pawn, used by the real journalists as a sympathetic figure in their attempt to push through some kind of special privileges for themselves.

If these journalists really beleive in what they are doing, why not spend time in jail in the rare case where protecting a source is important? (Not this case.) Soldiers and police put a lot more on the line every day to protect everyone's freedom. Some things are worth the sacrifice and sometimes the sacrifice is the only way to keep those things valuable.

Re:Journalist?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so special about real journalists? Is there no such thing as a poor real journalist or an admirable fake journalist? Maybe it was just a human, they should have different rights from the rest of us.

Re:Journalist?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

If these journalists really beleive in what they are doing, why not spend time in jail in the rare case where protecting a source is important?

What makes you think that these journalists don't exist? I have not heard of this person outside of Slashdot and I do read the newspapers.

Here's are couple such people that you are asking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/27/AR2005062700489_pf.html
http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/pages/resour ces/2004/11/journalists_need_a_getoutofjai/

Is it you who decides what types of sources are and are not worth protecting? For example, I really don't like the shenanigans thatt the current White House is doing, but even with the first example, I don't think that a member of the press should be compelled into revealing the source of their information.

Re:Journalist?

[vertinox]

He was not a journalist, and he was not protecting a source. He was a citizen who refused to cooperate with a police investigation. Not a hero, probably just another victim of his own fantasies and ignorance of what freedom of the press actually means.

Hrm... The BBC called him a reporter so mayhaps that makes it so?

Personally, I believe anyone can call themselves a journalist. There is no international standard and freedom of the press includes any Joe Scmhoe with a blog or a xerox copier.

When the constitution was written, newspapers were basically one page opinion journals written by anyone who happened to own a printing press. You didn't have to go to school, get a license from the government, or have other "journalists" recognize you. Same thing should apply today.

However, I think the key difference was that Freedom of the Press meant the government could not suppress your literature. He wasn't as much as being prevented from publishing as much as he was resisting court subpoena from giving information on it.

Although, what he was doing may not have been covered by Freedom of the Press he stuck by his guns and stuck through it. He could have at any moment gave names and addresses and been a free man, but he choose to actually go through with jail time.

I will give him that... Most of us are hard pressed to bother to vote on election day.

We are lazy and cowards and we have gotten the government we deserved. If there were a hundred thousand more guys like this we'd most likely have a government that stands up for something worth fighting for.

Re:Journalist?

[k1e0x]

Your post is very distasteful.. what you are saying is if the police demand something from you because they are in the middle of a "investigation" of some kind then you MUST turn that over to them. Perhaps police come to you some say and demand your family pictures.. yes, even that video tape you and your wife made on your wedding night.. If you said NO would you be ignorant of what freedom is?

>> If these journalists really beleive in what they are doing, why not spend time in jail in the rare case where protecting a
>> source is important? (Not this case.)

If you think jail is nice and easy how about YOU try it.

>> Soldiers and police put a lot more on the line every day to protect everyone's freedom. Some things are worth the sacrifice
>> and sometimes the sacrifice is the only way to keep those things valuable.

Name me a war in the last 100 years that our troops have fought for our freedom. WHY in the name of all freeking god were we involved in Korea? Vietnam? and Iraq? Our we protecting our freedom by fighting in Somalia? As we try to force a government on people who do not want one. Our military fights to make politicians and banks rich. Our Military and police don't protect our freedom, they enforce the oppression of our Government.

It's time to wake up.. Our government is plenty tyrannical.. Welcome to the USSR comrade Wolf.

Re:Journalist?

[Tarinth]

Perhaps you are correct about him not really protecting a source; you made a good argument until you got to the last sentence where you elevated soldiers and police above journalists and perhaps everyone else in society. It is possible for someone to be a patriot and a protector of freedom without carrying a gun. Historically, those societies which included the combination of strong police and military in the absence of a free press certainly did not use their armed "protectors" to support the cause of freedom.

Re:Journalist?

[daigu]

He is a journalist and he is protecting sources. You need to get acquianted with the facts of the case - read some other posts and make an effort to know what you are talking about before spouting off.

Re:Journalist?

[King_TJ]

I call utter bullshit on this! I'd mod you down if I thought that was more constructive than replying, in fact!

In my mind, Josh *is* a hero of a contemporary sort! I agree he was used as a "pawn", but only in government's attempt to railroad citizens into "on demand compliance" with whatever orders they feel like placing.
Why is a publisher of a "blog" any less of a "journalist" than another writer? You think the term should be narrowly defined to people who get published only to dead-tree media!? In the digital era, you simply can NOT hold onto those "old guard" ideas and expect them to be successful. See the RIAA or MPAA if you don't believe this. All forms of media are going digital, and that gives automatic legitimacy to the blogger or other web site publisher - whether or not he/she happens to be getting paid by some big corporation for the articles.

If you looked into this situation, you'd see that this was NOT simply about Josh refusing to turn over the videotape. That ended up being a "side issue" strategy for him. He was refusing to *testify* and potentially get questioned on this case. After he spent a few months in jail already for refusing to testify, then it became clear there was no advantage to turning over the videotape. They'd simply keep in him prison even LONGER once they got it, thinking they were slowly forcing him to comply with everything they asked for.

Every time a "Josh" comes along and is willing to stand up for what he believes in, even to the point of imprisonment, it chips away a little bit further at government's willingness to walk all over the laws of the land to get their way. (Why worry about what's Constitutional or "legal" if you can intimidate people into compliance and not get challenged on it in court, right?)

Re:Journalist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Soldiers and police put a lot more on the line every day to protect everyone's freedom.

That old shit again???? There are a hell of a lot of cases where they just do what they fucking want to people, then cover it up. Anyone heard of Haditha? Anyone heard of Fajitagate, where a drunken bunch of San Francisco cops beat the shit out of a couple of guys over a bag of fajitas? They all got off, mainly because one of the motherfucking thugs was the son of the goddamned deputy chief of police. Fuck the sons of bitches. Heroes, my bleeding ass.

Re:Journalist?

[cpghost]

However, I think the key difference was that Freedom of the Press meant the government could not suppress your literature. He wasn't as much as being prevented from publishing as much as he was resisting court subpoena from giving information on it.

But by putting him in jail, the government effectively prevented him from publishing further, therefore curtailing Freedom of Press. Perhaps this was this judge's (and those who pay him?) main motivation here? To silence someone until the topic they talked about cooled down a bit?

After all, how is this different from any 3rd world country? Someone there writes something their government won't like; government throws him in jail for whatever reason (not necessarily related to his journalistic activities) - end of journalistic criticism; and this journalist is furthermore discredited as a criminal, should he ever try to criticize the government again.

Re:Journalist?

[Anonymous Coward]

... Our government is plenty tyrannical

You've got that right and it's only getting worse. No one should be forced to give up something as evidence when such people aren't actually involved in the crime. That's like forcing the neighbor of someone who has commited a crime to a search of their residence just because they're in the general area of the suspected person's house. WTF has this country turned into?

I lived a care free life growing up, for the most part, as most of us probably did (I would hope). I never gave much care or notice to things such as this. Perhaps I didn't because it wasn't as bad so I didn't notice? In any case, it' bad now and getting worse. When do we, as a people, decided enough is enough?

I think the government should be held accountable. I think that if a judge sentences someone to jail time for 'contempt' and it is later found that doing so was a violation of the jailed person's constitutional rights, then the judge should be jailed for 2 days for every one day the 'cotempt' person was in jail. I think that if we had laws such as this, laws that held judicial powers accountable in a way that would affect thier own personal liberties, then the legal system would be more adpt to do the right thing when it comes to the rights of the citizens.

The way things are now, the government can do pretty much whatever they want without being held accountable. The government cannot be sued for abuse of power so, what happens, they abuse power, and they do it quite frequently. All these news laws that have been passed to protect us have just made our freedoms go away. With all these new 'protection' laws, we've gotten to a point to where we are in more danger from our government and their abuse of power than we are from any terroist. There's more of a chance of me getting killed by a police officer raiding the wrong house, shooting first without any real intent on asking questions later, than there is of a terroist doing so.

It's come down to an us vs them thing. All we can do is try to hold onto our rights (what little of them are left) as much as possible. If the governemnt tries to force information from me that should otherwise be a violation of my rights to do so, then, well, I must refuse. To give in is to allow the govermnet to get worse. I would hope that, in time, the power of the people would take care of their own. I would hope.

It's a sad time when I'm afraid to even post a message like this. Just doing so could cause my door to be broken down by some frederal swat team screaming 'domestic terroist' because I have a certain viewpoint on our government's ever increasing tryrannical methods and views of their own citizens.

What am i missing?

[sumdumass]

"The abuses visited on Josh and other journalists are part of an effort by governments at all levels to control the volume, flow and content of the information that reaches the public," the union said.'"

I thought this case was about a video blogger not giving the cops a video of some people damaging a cop car and setting it on fire. Now about the government suppressing information.

I think the only "suppressing information" going on here is the wolf guy's insistence on protecting thugs who torched the cop car by not turning the video over. And I'm wondering why they he won't turn it over, he said it doesn't show anything. Seems to me he should just require the prosecutors to pay a reasonable fee for every time the video or excerpts show up on the news and let them see the damn thing.

I bet two things would have happened, the prosecutor would make sure it doesn't show up anywhere the wolf guy didn't approve of and the case against him which was not letting them see what they think was evidence would have been dropped. This clown spent a good amount of time in jail because of his own wishes. I don't have any sympathy for him. Especially when the Union tries to spin it in a way that isn't related to the case.

Re:What am i missing?

[KarlHMarx]

How is this any different than the police spying on their own citizens (aka NYC Police Department). It's different because he is a private citizen, and he has the right to publish, or NOT PUBLISH his information. I'm sure that Winston would be quite proud of a person like you, I mean, a thought crime has happened, and by not turning over the information, he's supporting 'them'. The issue here is that the federal government abusing it's power to imprison someone who disagrees with the bush regime's 'control of the media'.

Re:What am i missing?

[VisceralLogic]

It has nothing to do with "control of the media"... it's about evidence in criminal investigation. It's not like he was even protecting any sources, anyway, he was just filming a bunch of random people.

Re:What am i missing?

[MPAB]

Refusing to testify and withholding evidence is illegal in most judicial systems around the world. By publishing the video he made public the fact the evidence exists and he's got it. If a judge requests it as evidence of a crime, he's got to give it to the court.

On the other hand, it's funny to see how the media/journalists/periodists/self-called-whatever shriek when any of their "targets" does not disclose information; but they themselves are so adept at withholding whatever they want.

Re:What am i missing?

[wfberg]

If any journalist can be forced to provide any information (including raw footage of demonstrations and providing sourced) to the police, they will be treated like the police, and we, the public, will get little or no information any more about these events, about these people and their motivations. This is obviously a bad thing.

If just anybody can claim to be a journalist and clam up, police and prosecution will have a lot less evidence to work with and have great problems prosecuting anyone. This is obviously a bad thing too.

The trick is to strike a balance between these public interests. That's a nuanced discussed not ideally suited to slashdot.

One thing you can say is: if this guy withstood 226 days of imprisonment and still didn't turn over the tapes, it seems pretty obvious that the court is taking extreme liberties with this guys personal freedoms, without producing results.
All the more irksome is that the guy went to jail without a real trial. For all we know the tapes, not having been physically entered into evidence, never actually existed, and the whole thing is based on hearsay and a confession.

Of course, the prevailing public mood in any case seems to be "something bad happened, so someone should go to jail". We live in interesting times.

Re:What am i missing?

[Psychotria]

I think the problem is that he published (sold?) parts of the tape and, therefore, the existence of the tapes is not in question.

Re:What am i missing?

[mrchaotica]

On the other hand, it's funny to see how the media/journalists/periodists/self-called-whatever shriek when any of their "targets" does not disclose information; but they themselves are so adept at withholding whatever they want.

WTF? That's how it's supposed to work! Information must flow from the government to the people, not the other way around; otherwise it perpetuates tyranny.

Re:What am i missing?

[Oligonicella]

One thing you can say is: if this guy withstood 226 days of imprisonment and still didn't turn over the tapes, it seems pretty obvious that the court is taking extreme liberties with this guys personal freedoms, without producing results.

No. What you can say is it hasn't produced results. No extreme liberties were taken. He refused to comply with a testimony order and, like thousands before him, sat in jail awaiting the time he would or they decided they didn't need it any more for some reason. Perfectly legal as it was his choice to not cooperate with bringing felons to justice.

Re:What am i missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If just anybody can claim to be a journalist and clam up, police and prosecution will have a lot less evidence to work with and have great problems prosecuting anyone. This is obviously a bad thing too.

That's not obviously bad at all. Care to present a real argument?

Re:What am i missing?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"I thought this case was about a video blogger not giving the cops a video of some people damaging a cop car and setting it on fire. Now about the government suppressing information." Which is what you were supposed to think. You'd know better if you RTFA. The video didn't have any footage of the damaged to either the police car or the policeman's skull. The police want to be able to get access to all recordings of any event that interests them. In this case, they managed.

Re:What am i missing?

[Rich0]

And what is the penalty for refusing to comply with a testimony order? Life in prison? That sounds like unusual punishment to me, which is constitutionally forbidden.

Oh, and he never got a trial by jury either - despite spending 8 months in prison.

Contempt of court should be a criminal charge like any other, and should require a court trial and sentence like any other crime. It shouldn't result in a person being held in prison indefinitely without a trial.

Re:What am i missing?

[rhakka]

I guess Maybe I'm just some radical.

I personally think it's ridiculous, tyrannical, and draconian that anyone can be forced to say anything.

If I witness a murder, and I don't want to talk about it, well... that's too bad. it's not my job to be an investigator, and perhaps I have very good reasons for not talking. Such as, self preservation.

But you think it's ok for the government to force me to risk my life for their judicial system? To force me to enter a witness protection program?

If not, then why should the government be able to force anyone to say anything, ever? I could see persecution for LYING on the stand, fine. But for refusing to speak? No way, never, ever.

Re:What am i missing?

[sumdumass]

Lol.. I read the article. Did you read the article summery?

They make it appear as if the problem is he the government jailed him to stop information in the video from getting out. When In fact it is the opposite.

And yes, I see no problem with the police getting access to information of an event surrounding a violent assault with willful destruction of property. Even If the guy claims there is nothing to see on it. But the thing is access, This doesn't mean the government is going to take it and never return it thereby suppressing the information like the article suggests.

Re:What am i missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The trick is to strike a balance between these public interests.

No. Laws exist, because within the construction of so called "social contract" the state has taken over some of the rights of individuals, to prevent anarchia. That is, ideally the relatives and friends of the victim would locate and punish an assailant, according to eye-for-eye principle.

Considering how some crimes are complicated and the identity of perpetrators not immediately clear, state takes your right and introduces specialized, capable organizations for the crime-fighting purpose, to prevent mistaken blood revenges and the resulting serial vendettas between families, which would lead to anarchy.

But at the core, it has nothing to do with the public interest, as the state investigates and punishes crimes solely because it is duty bound to do so under social contract it has with you and every citizen. If the state does not investigate and punish a crime or invents obstacles to ban itself from doing so, the victim, its relatives and friends are free under natural law to investigate themselves and punish according to eye-for-eye, because the state has relinquieshed its right.

Therefore in this investigation the only item that matters is that assailants who smashed the head of the policemen are identified and caught. Neither journalist, nor catholic priests shall be allowed to harbor murderers, arsonists and terrorists, that is a violation of the social contract and thus causes individuals to re-obtain the eye-for-eye rights.

Re:What am i missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm wondering why they he won't turn it over, he said it doesn't show anything.

Because, you fucking lickspittle, he didn't believe in the fascistic, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." Short version, "What do you have to hide?"

They were on a goddamned fishing expedition, because the almighty "one of their own" got fucked over.

A previous poster asked whether the guy would have turned the tape over if it had been a protester getting bashed. The real question is -- would the bastard cops have even bothered to ask for the tape if it had shown "one of their own" bully boys clubbing the living shit out of a protester? Unless, of course, their intent was to destrop that one.

A small matter of fructured skull

[iamacat]

1. A violent crime has been committed
2. The blogger directly recorded videos in question, so he is only protecting perpetrators of a crime, not innocent bystanders

I don't see how this is different from a regular individual who witnesses a crime and refuses to testify. If we allow this, anyone can claim to be an amateur journalist just because they don't want to testify about their buddies or bother coming to court. And we compare this to a political leak, it would like someone pointing out that one of the Senators is sleeping with underage boys but refusing to reveal which one.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[TheSkyIsPurple]

So, if my testifying would put me in danger... too bad for me?
If my testifying about that incident would expose other people to more serious problems, then too bad for them and me?

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[Evets]

I personally don't care what kind of crime has been committed. Throwing a guy in jail because he won't let you see his home video for a year is a crime in and of itself.

He obviously had reasons for not giving it up. It could be that there was other information on the same tape he didn't want prosecutors to see. It could be that it was terribly inconvenient to provide the video. It could be that there was nothing on the video in the first place. Or heck, it could be that he video taped himself vandalizing the car.

It's his private property, and the government has no right to it, or at least should not have a right to it. The slippery slope has already been laid for the government to take whatever property they want - just about anything could be justified with one lying cop, one aggressive prosecutor, and/or one judge.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[iamacat]

So basically, if you killed someone on the block and people who saw it are either your buddies or are shit scared of you, you get to walk away free?

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[symes]

Absolutely - I get the feeling here that 'wolf' has acted as judge and jury in his own mind in deciding that the video in question contains nothing of relevance. I can understand why someone would protect the identity of a whistle-blower, political activist, etc.. particularly where revealing their identity could put them in danger (e.g. chinese activists, etc.). but ptotecting the identity of someone who physically assaults another person? I find the crime abhorrent and the desire to protect the perpetrator questionable.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[bogjobber]

This isn't some random government jerk asking to look inside your house. This was a subpoena from federal court on information related to a violent crime. You can't pick and choose which evidence you want to provide to a grand jury for obvious reasons. This is not a freedom of the press or freedom of speech issue. They didn't take his property. They didn't publish it against his will. They didn't prevent him from publishing it. This is a very simple case that is remarkable only for the duration that he kept his head up his ass. If you withhold evidence from a trial you will go to jail.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[scot4875]

So basically, if you killed someone on the block and people who saw it are either your buddies or are shit scared of you, you get to walk away free?

Well, yeah. If there's no other evidence against you, then you're home free.

--Jeremy

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[Anonymous Coward]

2. The blogger directly recorded videos in question, so he is only protecting perpetrators of a crime, not innocent bystanders

If you read the whole story, you stupid fuck, you'd learn that the evidence they were fishing for did not exist on the tape. But the bullies got their way anyhow, by jailing the guy who made the video.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[denebian devil]

1. TFA clearly states that the footage this guy was withholding did not contain the alleged crimes authorities are investigating, and he had told them that from the beginning.
2. If you take your argument to its most logical conclusion, then no one should get journalistic protection, journalists would constantly be harassed into turning over their sources due to some social need/homeland security issue, and the media would finally completely transform into just a mouthpiece for government goodspeak/doublespeak.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[mrchaotica]

I can understand why someone would protect the identity of a whistle-blower, political activist, etc..

Then what don't you understand about the fact that there were apparently also other political activists (who did not attack the cop) in the video?

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[Oligonicella]

No, TFA clearly states that he states there is nothing on the tapes. His word is no good as this involves a felony. He wasn't censured, they weren't trying to prevent him from doing anything other than avoid testifying about a felony.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[Qzukk]

So basically, if you killed someone on the block and people who saw it are either your buddies or are shit scared of you, you get to walk away free?

Thus leading to the invention of the witness protection program. Known bug, tagging WONTFIX. If this outcome is not satisfying, submit an amendment to the charter permitting people to be charged without evidence, please do not reopen.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[denebian devil]

And he was perfectly willing to turn the tape over to the Judge so that the Judge could review it and confirm that no crimes were depicted on the tape, which would have allowed the contents of the tape to be reviewed by an impartial third party without allowing the government to use the tape to go on any fishing expeditions. It was the prosecution that refused such a compromise.

The reason I mentioned it is because so many posters above have said "how dare he withhold a tape that shows a felony being committed," and that's just not an accurate assessment of the situation. It would be more accurate to say that he was withholding a tape which the prosecution believed to show a felony being committed, but which Wolf denied to be the case. It's not so cut and dry as saying "he should clearly cooperate because his actions are hindering prosecution of evil nasty felons."

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[civilizedINTENSITY]

So how far do you take it? The video didn't include any footage of a crime, but the police have every right to it? How about if the video was taken the day before or the day after? Do the police still get it? If you get married in a park, do the police get to make copies of your wedding video and your wedding photos because there was a mugging in the park (on the other side park, say, the year before)?

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Would making the video available to the judge, so the judge could determine if the footage was relevant, make any difference? Would the prosecutors' motion to prevent the judge from looking at the footage to determine if it would be relevant make any difference to you? Doesn't this seem like a power play?

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[King_TJ]

It's different because the person with the information chose to publish a discussion of the events via the Internet!

Do you typically go around publishing a written account for the world to see about every little event you witness in daily life? Likely not! I've witnessed car crashes, a couple younger students getting in a fist-fight in front of a school and many other things in just the last few months, and never published stories about ANY of those things.

So in all of these case, it's clear I wouldn't be able to hide behind a claim of being a "journalist" if I was asked to testify about them.

In the age of digital media, how do you expect to define a "journalist", if publishing a blog or web site with your own stories doesn't count? You're only protected if your work is paid for by a large publishing house? Only if it gets printed on paper vs. electronic media?

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[zippthorne]

If it doesn't make a difference why did he try to stipulate it, then? It's up to him to be the reasonable one (if there really is no difference), the state is a mechanical entity.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that it is interesting that if there is video of police bashing in skulls(Rodney King) nobody has any problems turning in the video, but when the cops are getting their heads bashed in they exercise their "journalistic integrity" and go to jail to the guilty. It seems we have swung too far. If we were really balanced we would show both.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[pipingguy]

If collusion was involved it's a different story. That's always difficult to prove so the government went overboard (wrongly, IMO).

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[iamacat]

Well, you can not just arbitrarily try to force the government to do what YOU think is right without accepting the consequences. Somehow prosecutors convinced the judge to issue the subpoena and reject the compromise in question. Perhaps it even makes sense - judge or a 3rd party in question do not necessarily have the law enforcement expertise to identify potential lawbreakers to be questioned in the crowd of shouting people. If it was a grave error, there are petitions, elections and revolutions depending on the circumstances. If you are willing to stay in jail for your convictions in such a case, well that's your decision.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[pipingguy]

On the other hand, journalism ain't what it used to be. I consider "blogging" (AKA "citizen journalism") to be a good development though.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[Citizen of Earth]

Well, yeah. If there's no other evidence against you, then you're home free.

No, they'll call you a journalist and throw you in jail on a contempt charge until you confess, however many years that may take.

Re:A small matter of fructured skull

[LandruBek]

Relevance to what? The Federal prosecutor is not investigating assault, he's investigating terrorism. Mr. Chaotica had a good point -- Wolf is protecting others -- and I don't even know if the jerk who hit the cop got caught or not (I hope so). But the main point I think everyone has ignored is that Wolf is protecting people from a Federal terrorism investigation, even though the idea of calling this "terrorism" is absurd, repugnant, and oppressive. Worthy of resisting.

As I said above, "A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism."

Re:Blogger jailed?

[gogojcp]

protesters that vandalized a police car.

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[AchiIIe]

> ...pasting other people's ORIGINAL writing, you are not a journalist.

Did you bother reading the article? This guy was not just a blogger who got the latest digg.com headlines and commented on them. He had a camera and went down in the trenches to obtain original footage. Yet he is not registered as a journalist.

But the thing most people here miss -- even if he was a journalist they could still have jailed him. The law protects him from local police investigations, not from Federal investigations. He was easy prey.

On the other hand... WTF dude, a cop was almost killed and you refuse to hand over the tape?

he should have pled the 1-2-3-4-fifth!

[Anonymous Coward]

he should have pled the 1-2-3-4-fifth!

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF dude, a cop was almost killed and you refuse to hand over the tape?

So what? Is a cops life worth more than anyone else's?

Fuck an almost dead cop. If he wanted to life a life devoid of physical danger, he should have been a florist. I wonder how many skulls did he crack before someone returned the favor.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[MPAB]

And fractured a cop's skull. As far as I remember, cops share the same rights as protesters. I wonder if he'd have been reluctant to hand over the video if it had been the other way around (protester's skull fractured).

protection of sources

[timmarhy]

Protection of sources does not extend to people who have committed a crime. this jerk wad filmed a bunch of people vandalising a car and hitting a cop. why should they be protected because he wrote a piece about it? they weren't interviewed, they aren't some secret source. this guys just an attention whore, and i hope he rots in jail and gets a few visits from the "sisters" for protecting these fucks.

Re:protection of sources

[Psychotria]

I'm no expert, but reading the article seems to indicate that there were no sources anyway--just himself. He took the footage, he published it, he sold parts of it. I doubt "protection of sources" would extend to viewing oneself as a source. Then again, this is a crazy world.

Re:protection of sources

[Psychotria]

Extending my last comment, if protection of sources extended to myself, what's to stop me video taping myself performing an act of violence, videotaping myself and then putting it on my blog and when the law comes knocking claim I cannot hand over the evidence because I am protecting my source (me)?

Re:protection of sources

[Mr Jazzizle]

IANAL, but you have the constitutional right to not self-incriminate. They couldn't force you to hand over the video of you committing a crime if you took the video, because it'd be sealing your own fate, and that's not cool. However, POSTING the video of you committing crime counts, I believe, as waiving that right, and you'd look like a flaming fool if you tried to say police couldn't use that as evidence.

A simple concept

[Ribbo.com]

Don't withold information from a police investigation. The problem here is that individuals believe they are above the law and are doing it in the interests of the common man. A lot of people are willing to use the system so long as it works for them, then soon as something happens that places them in trouble, all of a sudden the system is a flawed, err, system that shouldn't be pandered to. The truth of the situation is if you know information concerning a crime that has been committed, it is in your interest to speak up, especially if you are a "journalist". We have some darn strange journalists who don't seem to realise they are meant to report the truth. I don't understand the mentality of someone willing to do time for a crime someone else committed, feels very mafia like to me, and we don't want a return to those days...

Re:A simple concept

[pembo13]

Well I suppose I agree with you, not all crimes are wrong (not refering to any one specifically) and I think it is rarely (subject to correction) really in ones "interest" to speakup. Speaking up just tends to be the "right thing to do", which is different. And your last statement makes it sound like "those days" are gone; maybe the name mafia isn't used, but these things still, and will always go on.

Re:A simple concept

[vertinox]

Don't withold information from a police investigation. The problem here is that individuals believe they are above the law and are doing it in the interests of the common man.

The same thing could be said about French Resistance fighters and Gestapo officers. Or Hungarian freedom fighters and Soviet KGB officers. Or heck... American Revolutionaries and British soldiers.

We throw those "anarchists" up on pedestals but when the same thing happens here we call them villains and criminals.

Personally, I don't believe in this guy's cause and don't believe in his groups methods, but I can understand where they are coming from because the same thing has happened over and over again throughout history. He'll most likely remain a villain to many because we may not ever see a major governmental or societal change.

But more than that, I'm more concerned about government being above the law in the meantime. Why is federal tax money going to state coffers for state law enforcement? Why was he held in prison for long long and not actually charged with a crime?

Both of these facts violated the constitution.

Re:A simple concept

[Ribbo.com]

In each case you're comparing assisting a democratically elected governments police force with assisting an invading force or dictatorship. Sorry, doesn't work. You pick your side and assist them which is fine, but why go against democracy?

Re:A simple concept

[hedora]

I don't really care if an individual believes he is above the law. When federal government believes it is above the law I start to worry. This is yet another example of the feds trying to silence political dissent by ignoring the law and our constitutional rights.

First the FCC killed off the small news agencies and radio stations. In response, journalists went freelance. Now the freelance journalists are using blogs to bypass the remaining few news agencies left in this country and the government is looking for excuses to toss them in jail.

Do you think it's a coincidence that this happened in San Francisco, which is fairly tolerant of political protest, and the local authorities didn't want to pursue the matter? The feds had to use a legal technicality to go after this guy, since the "crime" was outside of their jurisdiction.

By the way, this has been happening at the state level as well; look at the [inter-]national spy network the NYPD set up in order to prepare for the Republican National Convention.

Re:A simple concept

[ahodgson]

Because the anti-globalization "protestors" don't really like democracy. They want everyone to agree with them, right now, and if you don't, they'll break your skull, too.

Re:Sweet, so now we get to decide which laws to ob

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact you are here talking about him shows that it was not "all for nothing."

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fuck an almost dead cop."

Spoken like a true AC piece of shit.

I have to assert

[Anonymous Coward]

That judging from his photo in the article he should have been jailed. Oh... sorry, 'tis me judging books by covers again. Damn.

So far everyone has missed the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm very disappointed by the first dozen or so Slashdot comments. We all know most people who comment don't RTFA but this case is right up the alley of most Slashdotters...

For those of us still in the world with free thinking and actually use the rights afforded to us by the Constitution, this is a worrisome trend. Since 9/11, local, state and federal officers in both uniforms and plain clothes have been monitoring protesters. In particular, they want to know who the leaders and most vocal of the bunch are. This is then followed by the creation of dossiers outlining the activities of these people who exercise their right to dissent against mainsteam political opinions. With the advent of the PATRIOT act and various other "terrorism" related laws, wiretaps, probing of bank records, etc. are used not only to intimidate but silence anything that Big Brother doesn't agree with.

The point all of you have missed is that Wolf's footage never included vandalism of the police car--which was reported by the city of San Francisco to be nothing more than a broken tail light. The assault on the officer was captured only on a photograph by another protester and was also never part of Wolf's footage. The official reason for the subpoena the video was so the panel could see if any other potential crimes were committed. This however wasn't really the case because it was suspected Mr. Wolf knew the identities of people who choose to mask their faces during the protest. Mr. Wolf refused to turn these over because nothing else was needed from those tapes other than the profiling of activists at the protest and he didn't want to be compelled on the stand to give up those identities. Mr. Wolf and his lawyers believe there is no reason to comply with a Grand Jury not called in good faith to subvert his First Amendment rights--the reason it was called was because apparently Federal funds helped to pay for the police car. He stayed in jail for 286 but eventually gave in. This is very worrisome!

Where is the Slashdot group-think now? So have all of you decided that you're now aligned with dossiers and profiling of people who exercise their Constitutional rights? Are we saying that any footage caught in a public place, even if we don't prompt the said incident, is our responsibility? I hope I'm wrong.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Psychotria]

If it showed nothing else, then we are to take his word for it? Crap.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if you wanted video tape of the incidents, why weren't you out there with your camera, dickwad?

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Psychotria]

Umm, because I don't want a tape of the incidents? dickwad.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Harmonious Botch]

I think that parent has erroneously joined together two separate issues - cops collecting private information and cops collecting public information. I wish to try to separate them:

For those of us still in the world with free thinking and actually use the rights afforded to us by the Constitution, this is a worrisome trend. Since 9/11, local, state and federal officers in both uniforms and plain clothes have been monitoring protesters. In particular, they want to know who the leaders and most vocal of the bunch are. This is then followed by the creation of dossiers outlining the activities of these people who exercise their right to dissent against mainsteam political opinions.
This is simply cops doing their job. When the non-mainsteam opinion is linked with violent crimes, a cop should be able to keep track of public actions and expressions. ( If the crime were, say, the gay-bashing and subsequent death of the guy in Wyoming, shall we deny the cops the ability to keep track of public anti-gay statements? Or when some black guy gets dragged to death behind a truck, should the cops have been allowed to keep tabs on public statements and acts of avowed rascists? )

With the advent of the PATRIOT act and various other "terrorism" related laws, wiretaps, probing of bank records, etc. are used not only to intimidate but silence anything that Big Brother doesn't agree with. Now this is different. It is not public.

While I am as concerned as anyone about the government intruding into my privacy, I have no problem with the cops keeping track of public acts. The TFA is about public acts.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Harmonious Botch]

Further comments about the distinction between public and private:

The purpose of a shield law is to allow people to speak privately to journalist ( and BTW, I'll agree that Wolf qualifies as a journalist ). If he has private interviews of the rioters, they should be protected. If he personally knows the rioters - and there are reasonable claims that he does - that information is private and should be protected.

But the riots were a public act. Wolf taped them as anyone - including the cops - could have.

The real question here is: should a journalist should be allowed to take something that is public and make it private, and then claim protection under privacy laws?

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[pcgamez]

Further comments about the distinction between public and private:

The purpose of a shield law is to allow people to speak privately to journalist ( and BTW, I'll agree that Wolf qualifies as a journalist ). If he has private interviews of the rioters, they should be protected. If he personally knows the rioters - and there are reasonable claims that he does - that information is private and should be protected.

But the riots were a public act. Wolf taped them as anyone - including the cops - could have.

The real question here is: should a journalist should be allowed to take something that is public and make it private, and then claim protection under privacy laws? Why is it that nobody here is bothering to read the background on this story? This case has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE VIDEO FOOTAGE. Good god, when are you going to learn to actually read something before you post.

Wolf offered to release the tape multiple times. The stumbling block has always been that he was ordered to essentially provide a profile to the secret grand jury about all the people he knew of that were at the riot. This part had nothing at all to do with the damaged police car and everything to do with the government wanting to know who the political dissidents are.

THAT is what the case is about.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be dossiers and profiling of people who are affiliated with these kinds of groups (and I use that term loosely) in an effort to ERADICATE any such groups!" Ok, you are crazy. Would you feel just as good about the police keeping dossiers and profiling the people who are trying to set up free trade? Would it be OK if the police decided to clean up, say, all the liberals? What if the police decided to go after neo-cons? Why should the police be allowed to be taking sides in matters of politics? Crazy.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Purist]

COMPLETELY missed the point I made.

Is setting up free trade ILLEGAL...does it involve vandalism or physical violence? Furthermore, if the police targeted ANY group that wasn't known to break the law or encouraged it's members to do so it would be wrong and NO ONE would be "comfortable" with it - but what does that have to do with my point?! Nothing whatsoever.

"dossier" and "profiling" are hype terms designed to inflate the scare factor of your lame argument. Ever heard of a criminal record? I suppose that's a "dossier", huh? What about police who break up a gang fight and corral up all the folks in the area wearing gang colors...that's gotta be "profiling"! How we will EVER survive as a society with this going on!?

who's crazy?

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[evilviper]

But the riots were a public act. Wolf taped them as anyone - including the cops - could have.

The real question here is: should a journalist should be allowed to take something that is public and make it private, and then claim protection under privacy laws?

It's a good thing Woodward and Bernstein weren't filming their conversations with Deep Throat... After all, it was a public parking garage, and, presumably, the police potentially could have been recording that, in some way.

How is it that the right to protect sources, and not being compelled to turn over sources, doesn't apply when video is involved?

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[rhakka]

The point is they cannot determine who is and is not committing illegal acts until AFTER they have invaded the privacy of people. Which means, by definition, they must invade the privacy of innocent people in order to determine who is committing the illegal acts.

Now, they might stop some of the illegal acts... great.

However, they might also decide to do stuff to the innocent people they have compromised. Say they find out you wear women's underwear. The officer involved decides to blackmail you with this info.. it's not illegal, just embarrassing.

Or, after they have infiltrated peaceful groups they can disrupt them, whether or not they are doing anything illegal. For instance, what if they start infiltrating anarchist groups, and they infiltrate one that has a very strict non-violence policy, that does nothing illegal and just protests and fights to change our system into an anarchist one via peaceful means?

What if you're not breaking any violent laws, just immoral ones?

This is exactly what the "Gestapo" FBI agents in the 60's and 70's did.. infiltrate and disrupt community organizations pushing for change. They abused their power and persecuted, framed, entrapped and disrupted these organizations.. not because of illegal activities, but because these organizations caused problems for the power structure.

But, I suppose you're ok with that. Or you believe that certainly that would never happen again, right?

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Harmonious Botch]

Actually, Deep Throat is a good example. He went to great lengths to make the conversation private - potted plants used as signals, standing in shadows, whispering, pausing to looking over his shoulder, etc. And it is that effort and intent that counts, doing something so that one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if some ingenious cop cirumvents it.

And the fact that the particular media is video is not relevant. He should turn over any media if the subjects had no reasonable expectation of privacy. This would apply to still photos, audio tapes, etc.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[evilviper]

And it is that effort and intent that counts, doing something so that one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if some ingenious cop cirumvents it.

Your excuses to justify your opinion have NO basis in reality. There is no legal recognition of privacy, no matter how sneaky you intend to be, in a public space.

The only expectation of privacy is the recognized right of the press to not be compelled to reveal sources, and that absolutely applies just as much in public, as it does in private.

You're obviously trying to go back and justify your initial opinion, not actually form an opinion based on facts.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Harmonious Botch]

Let's skip the ad hominems about who has read what. To paraphase Twain, doing such a thing on slasdot will please a few and amaze the rest.

Wolf offered to release the tape multiple times. The stumbling block has always been that he was ordered to essentially provide a profile to the secret grand jury about all the people he knew of that were at the riot. This part had nothing at all to do with the damaged police car and everything to do with the government wanting to know who the political dissidents are I mostly agree with the above that this is about "the government wanting to know who the political dissidents are." But this is not neccesarily a problem. They ought to be able to do that if their aims are crime-solving and not political.

As the GGP says, "This is simply cops doing their job. When the non-mainsteam opinion is linked with violent crimes, a cop should be able to keep track of public actions and expressions. ( If the crime were, say, the gay-bashing and subsequent death of the guy in Wyoming, shall we deny the cops the ability to keep track of public anti-gay statements? Or when some black guy gets dragged to death behind a truck, should the cops have been allowed to keep tabs on public statements and acts of avowed rascists? )

Unless you want to tie the hands of the cops so completely that they are not even allowed o make the same observations as the average citizen, eventually the question comes down to what a cop is allowed to look at and what he is not. This is why the GP gets into the distinction of public vs private.

Wolf has information that the cops want, ( and as explained above, they have a legitimate reason to want ). Some is on tape, some is possibly in writing, some is in his skull. The stuff on tape is of public acts. The stuff in his skull is private.

He should hand over the tape ( because it is public ) and make his stand on the stuff in his skull ( because it is private ). He should not impede legitimate law enforcement by trying to deliberately mix the two.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Harmonious Botch]

There is no legal recognition of privacy, no matter how sneaky you intend to be, in a public space. Sorry, but you are dead wrong on this. The easiest example I can think of is an attourney whispering to his client in a courtroom. The courtroom is clearly a public place, but the mere attempt to have a private conversation makes it private. The prosecution cannot use anything they might overhear, and will catch hell from the judge if they should try.

Intent matters.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[evilviper]

Sorry, but you are dead wrong on this.

No, I'm not. Intending to be sneaky doesn't matter on bit.

The easiest example I can think of is an attourney whispering to his client in a courtroom.

Attorney client privilege is much more than a privacy law. You can be in a room with 100 people, talking to your lawyer so that they can hear you, and it still wouldn't be usable. The police could get a warrant to tap your phones, and not be allowed to use anything you say to your lawyer. It is not privacy law, and has NOTHING to do with intent.

There are similar issues with religious figures, as well as doctors.

Those exceptions to lack of privacy in public are really an entirely different class of issues, have nothing to do with privacy laws, and absolutely do not require (or care about) intent at all.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[Kesh]

He should hand over the tape ( because it is public ) and make his stand on the stuff in his skull ( because it is private ). He should not impede legitimate law enforcement by trying to deliberately mix the two.

He was not. Read his comments again: the prosecutors refused to only accept the tape. He had to agree to identify the protestors on the video as well. So he was willing to do what you said; the prosecutors were not. They were fishing.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[toddhisattva]

What if the police decided to go after neo-cons?

Ain't no "what if" about it.

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[toddhisattva]

The point all of you have missed is that Wolf's footage never included vandalism of the police car

According to Wolf and his attorney.

From the AP article,

The footage Wolf posted online Tuesday does not capture the alleged crimes authorities are investigating, defense lawyer David Greene said.

Please, people. A little skepticism. His lawyer said it.

Or further, CNN is attributing to the AP a story that says his lawyer said it. Even shakier!

We do not know if Wolf put everything on his web site. Only Wolf, his lawyer, and the Court know. Two of them can be counted on to say what they're saying regardless of the truth, and the third may never tell.

AP + CNN + lawyer = reason for skepticism

So have all of you decided that you're now aligned with dossiers and profiling of people who exercise their Constitutional rights?

The Constitutional right to damage property and break skulls? I missed that one!

Or is it the Constitutional right of journalists to do whatever they want?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The best part is that he is hiding behind the First Amendment to protect people who refuse to work within its provisions.

How is the Freedom of the Press being abridged here? Wolf was and is able to publish whatever he wants. A Court orders him to habeas some of his corpus of work because it may be evidence of a crime.

The relationship between a reporter and subject is not privileged, the way lawyer-client communication is. A client *needs* to be able to speak freely with his lawyer or doctor. Nobody *needs* to speak freely to a reporter. And certainly, nobody *needs* to be able to riot freely in their presence. Neither do reporters *need* to speak freely with their subjects. The only Constitutional *need* here is that the press be able to publish.

It is the nature of the doctor or lawyer's job to keep things in confidence. It is the nature of a journalist's job to do the opposite.

A shield law is a barely-concealed attempt to protect bad journalists who become part of the story.

Or as in this case, become the story.

"Dude takes pictures of friends doing something dumb - film at 11!"

Re:So far everyone has missed the point...

[sonamchauhan]

The problem is you're willing to let an illegal act remain hidden, in fear that some of the information uncovered may be misused. The flaw in your argument is there are laws against this misuse.

> The point is they cannot determine who is and is not committing illegal acts
> until AFTER they have invaded the privacy of people. Which means, by definition,
> they must invade the privacy of innocent people in order to determine who
> is committing the illegal acts.

The police don't just go on a fishing trip - they obtain warrants to search material likely to help their investigation.

> However, they might also decide to do stuff to the innocent people they have
> compromised. Say they find out you wear women's underwear. The officer involved
> decides to blackmail you with this info.. it's not illegal, just embarrassing.

Such blackmail is illegal, and there are laws to protect you against it.

If it was your head that a police officer (illegally) cracked, and your co-protestor refused to release the tape of the incident to the court hearing your case?

Re:Sweet, so now we get to decide which laws to ob

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah this Wolf piece of shit and those anarachists at G8 who assault police officers are why we're all on Slashdot tonight speaking our mind. Yeah right, you fucking idiot.

His blog

[Esteanil]

His blog should shed some light on the issues you and others have been asking.

Re:Real mature

[kdemetter]

Never used anything besides Windows , am i right ? You should try Ubuntu at least . that's should be easy enough for you .

B.S.

[SuperKendall]

If the video really showed nothing, proove it to the court by allowing only the judge to see it - or something along those lines. You don't have to make it public or even turn it over to anyone.

Since all anyone has is his word it showed nothing, yet he also seemed to be protective of the people who hurt the officer, the court was right to find him in contempt.

Re:B.S.

[dhwwwops]

During the course of this saga I have repeatedly offered to allow a judge to be the arbiter over whether or not my video material has any evidentiary value.

Down the page just before the video.
http://joshwolf.net/blog/

Re:B.S.

[eraser.cpp]

If the video really showed nothing, proove it to the court by allowing only the judge to see it - or something along those lines

He did. But I guess you can't be hassled to look into the facts before you call the tragedy of him being held for nearly a year justified.

Not about injury nor journalism nor withholding...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please whether he is a real journalist or not and whether he sucks because he didn't cooperate enough with police for some people or whether he saw a crime are not relevant to this case. It is all about a dubious line of reasoning used to circumvent a state law the prosecutors (or whatever puppetmaster behind the scenes) didn't like. The MSM has muddied the waters by constantly emphasizing the parts of the case they want to for misdirection.

I can't for the life of me understand why the MSM and legal and state's rights groups were not up in arms about this case. Regardless of what he did, who he is, whether he is really a journalist or not the spectacular thing about this case is:
The Feds decided they have jurisdiction in the case because a SFPD car was damaged and Federal monies (which were of course taken from the people and the local and state governments) were given to the SFPD therefore the Feds "own" a chunk of that car therefore they have jurisdiction.

Now by that logic any place or object associated with a crime, could by some tortured path, be connected back to federal monies and therefore the crimes could be prosecuted by the feds. MSM journalists have alot to lose in this case because next time that a prosecutor wants to strip a MSM journalist of their California rights they could ask the Feds for "help" prosecuting the case. The case happened on a highway - federal dollars from the DOT, happened on a farm federal dollars from farm aid, happened in a school federal dollars for NCLB, etc. The state's rights issues should be glaringly obvious. And the risk to MSM journalists having the same thing happen to them is huge and I bet it will if things heat up before the election and/or after if Bush wins again.

I don't normally ask, but please mod this up so people understand and discuss and spread the word about the real reason he was willing to sit in jail. Thanks.

Re:Attn. Linux Users

[Raptoer]

Why isn't there something lower than -1, offtopic? There should be a -3, offtopic, flamebait, troll.

If you're the parent poster, or you have ever posted something like that, then you computer should fry itself. You do not deserve it. Your very presence should make computers homicidal(towards you) or suicidal.

Re:Real mature

[Raptoer]

How about this? if you don't like it, don't use it! SIMPLE AS THAT. unlike other OS's, nobody is going to force you to use Linux.

let me guess your age... 13 at max. If you're going to act like an asshole, at least think of something original and get yourself a real ID. At least then I would know who to add to my list of people to ignore.

You sir are wrong...

[Critical_]

The GP poster needs to be modded up for actually know what s/he is talking about. From the Wiki page on :

In a televised interview on February 9, 2007, Wolf and his attorney, Martin Garbus...

Wolf stated during his portion of the interview via phone from prison that he has offered to allow the judge to review "in camera" the raw footage to determine if there's any applicable evidence within the video and the U.S. Attorney's office refused the offer based on a legal technicality. Wolf also said that the raw video doesn't offer any more applicable evidence of the arson or assault charges.

It sounds like a witch hunt and you sound just like another poster who needs a good whack with a clue stick.

How is this insightful?

[denebian devil]

If you had actually read TFA (oh noes, people on /. don't RTFA???), you would have seen that the footage this guy was withholding did not contain the alleged crimes authorities are investigating, and he had told them from the beginning that that was the case. If you had read any of the other articles about this case, you would also know that the blogger was not concerned about protecting "some people damaging a cop car and setting it on fire," but rather protecting the identities of the rest of the law abiding protesters who had attended the protest. There were serious suspicions that the government was trying to get this tape as a way of documenting the protesters and possibly flagging them as subversives/terrorists/pariahs-du-jour. He was also concerned with the protection of a journalist from having to reveal sources and showing in Court that those protections extend to freelance bloggers as well. Without those protections, the press turns into nothing more than a mouthpiece for the government's "goodspeak." None of which has anything directly to do with protecting a couple vandals.

Re:How is this insightful?

[denebian devil]

There were serious suspicions that the government was trying to get this tape as a way of documenting the protesters and possibly flagging them as subversives/terrorists/pariahs-du-jour.

Oh, and the fact that the government was willing to take over the case from California State officials, claiming that the case belonged in Federal jurisdiction because the SF police department receive a little Homeland Security money, shows just how far the government was willing to go to do an end-run around the California shield law.

Re:How is this insightful?

[portnoy]

...the blogger was not concerned about protecting "some people damaging a cop car and setting it on fire," but rather protecting the identities of the rest of the law abiding protesters who had attended the protest.

But isn't this a mis-application of the journalistic shield? The state laws that allow for such a defense apply to sources, so that people can feel safe creating a dialogue with a journalist and feed information that the public has a right to know. The identities that Wolf was protecting are not, as far as we know, people whom he was cultivating as sources. They're just people that he knows that were at the same place he was when he was filming. They're also potential witnesses to vandalism, arson and battery.

I think in this case the ends may justify the means. I'd love to see a shield law at the Federal level, to help the Judith Millers of the world. I'm just not seeing grounds for a law that would protect Wolf here.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

>the footage this guy was withholding did not contain the alleged crimes authorities are investigating, and he had told them from the beginning that that was the case

He may be lying. Therefore your statment is a logical fallacy.

BTW, I don't understand the whole dragging case. Just have his computers searched for the raw material. Any judge would sign the warrant.

Re:How is this insightful?

[sumdumass]

Well I did read the article. And if you would have read my post, I quoted the story submission in which the union made the claim that this dick head in question was proof that the government was trying to suppress information when in fact it is the opposite.

I can care less about why this looser is sitting in jail. That wasn't the point that was clearly spelled out in my post. The point was how is this the government suppressing information?

So far I have been modded down and had several replies that don't address this. The quote I gave came directly from the article submission and is in the article itself. Now I doubt any journalist has the interest of innocent civilians at heart. It seems to me that the guy could have just said nothing is in here, showed the judge and been gone with it. but instead we have this being reported as the government suppressing information. And if anything smells of an agenda it is this.

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC the 'original' tape wasn't needed. He was ready to testify who was responsible, but for some reason they wanted the original tape and went all out to get it. If you got eye-witnesses and the option to get a scene from the tape with all the info you need, why do you want to confiscate the tape?

Both parties are more than a little boneheaded. Especially calling it a federal case because the police car in the scene had federal founding is more than a little powerplay.

Re:Real mature

[pembo13]

Irony may not be the word, but a person asking other guys to suck his dick, and calling those guys fags is at the least... funny.

Journalist.

[Brown]

So, what makes someone a Journalist, and therefore protected from potential abuses of authority in order to provide the people with the infomation they need for democracy to be something more than a stage-managed farce?

Who decides?

There are 3 options:
A) A journalist is someone 'licenced' as such by a government body. I'm sure everyone can see the danger in that...
B) A journalist is someone 'licenced' as such by a media coporation, such as Fox News, CNN, ...
C) A journalist is someone who *journals* - who records events for posterity and/or to inform the people.

I personally feel that C is the most sensible, and by far the safest for society. In any rate, FTA: "Wolf, a freelancer, sold some footage to San Francisco television stations and posted it on his Web site, but refused to turn over unpublished material." So both B and C would classify him as a Journalist.

-Chris

And when it proves that there is no such footage?

[Anonymous Coward]

As Wolf said, there is no other criminal activity and the cop and car wallop aren't on the video, should the feds be done for slander?

Oh, no, they can't because the feds are immune to that sort of allegation. Unlike the public...

Local car, federal case?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the police car in question was a locally owned and operated vehicle of the city/township/county/state and the officer that was injured was employed by the city/township/county/state, why was this matter in the hands of the federal government when it should have clearly been a matter for the city/township/county/state?

EVeryone knows the govt is evil!!!!

[cheekyboy]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/l a-na-goodling7apr07,1,1880249.story?coll=la-news-p olitics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true

Because NY Times sucks, as it makes old articles 'pay for view'

Wow, since when is history for sale? Ahh its only for the rich to know the truth.

Any way... the US govt is evil, etc.. yadda yadda... scum bags , or shit bags.

If Jesus was here today, he would turn those attorneys into instant dust and LOL, be damned, worship the ORI!!!

Re:EVeryone knows the govt is evil!!!!

[idugcoal]

If you're looking to the NY Times (online) as an accurate depiction of "history," then I'm not sure that what you're really after is "truth" (see Jason Blair)). Besides, I'm sure you could find it in microfische in the public library. But you might have to, you know, GO there.
 
As to the rest of your post: huh? Am i feeding the trolls?

Re:EVeryone knows the govt is evil!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any way... the US govt is evil, etc.. yadda yadda... scum bags , or shit bags. If Jesus was here today, he would turn those attorneys into instant dust and LOL, be damned, worship the ORI!!! Riiight. Hey look behind you! It's the bogeyman, out to get you! Zounds :P. Good thing you have Jesus to protect you =D. And by the way, no Government is evil. They're just all incompetent :P.

Re:EVeryone knows the govt is evil!!!!

[bensch128]

Because NY Times sucks, as it makes old articles 'pay for view'

Maybe you should take responsibility and archive old NY Times articles for them. Then it would be free for you.

Except then you would have to be organized and responsible... oh wait, that's the business model of the 21st century.

Ben

Re:Attn. Linux Users

[Dilaudid]

Dear AC, I wonder how you just happened upon these pictures from "ukdirtypanties.com"? Do you have a large collection of links to use on these occasions?

lol Glad one person laughed at your joke :)

On topic - 226 days is amazing. Can't believe journalists aren't protected...

Grand jury

[Harmonious Botch]

...the footage this guy was withholding did not contain the alleged crimes authorities are investigating, and he had told them from the beginning that that was the case. That may be true, but it does not get to the guts of the issue, which is who gets to make that decision? Are we really going to grant a journalist the ability to say "I don't think it is relevant to your case, so you can't have it" ?
Somebody has to decide if the footage is relevant, and it should be an impartial party - not the jounalist, not the cops. This is why we have grand juries.

Re:Grand jury

[Anonymous Coward]

> Somebody has to decide if the footage is relevant, and it should be an impartial party - not the jounalist, not the cops. This is why we have grand juries

From Wikipedia:
--
Charges involving "capital or infamous crimes" under federal jurisdiction must be presented to a grand jury, under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This has been interpreted to permit bypass of the grand jury for misdemeanor offenses, which can be charged by prosecutor's information. ...
Some argue that the grand jury is unjust as the defendant is not represented by counsel and/or does not have the right to call witnesses. Intended to serve as a check on prosecutors, the opportunity it presents them to compel testimony can in fact prove useful in building up the case they will present at the final trial.

In practice, a grand jury rarely acts in a manner contrary to the wishes of the prosecutor. Judge Sol Wachtler, the disbarred former Chief Judge of New York State, was quoted as saying, "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich."
--

Doesn't sound impartial to me. Whether or not the video is relevant is not relevant! As a journalist the man has specially protected rights to free speech. Just because the boundary between journalist and citizen has blurred does not mean this is a bad thing -- blurring should strengthen the rights of ordinary citizens if anything. Those rights have been abused. The prosecutors and judges who enact that abuse ought to pay for it with public, tarnished practice records of their own that can be cited in future legal proceedings.

Re:Grand jury

[Oligonicella]

As a journalist the man has specially protected rights to free speech.

Only as long as he doesn't actively protect a crinimal, which is what the GJ is about. He (this guy) was a witness, not a defendant.

Re:Grand jury

[NMerriam]

Somebody has to decide if the footage is relevant, and it should be an impartial party - not the jounalist, not the cops. This is why we have grand juries.

Actually, that's why we have judges. Judges decide matters of law. And the tape was offered to the judge to view so that he could see there was no evidentiary value to it, it was the government attorneys who refused to allow the judge to view the evidence.

Re:Grand jury

[MurphyZero]

And why didn't the judge jail those attorneys for contempt? The judge could have handled this case a lot better, look at the tape, determine which claims were correct and then proceeded in a proper manner.

Re:Grand jury

[Harmonious Botch]

Actually, that's why we have judges Ooops! Writing without thinking again. I've disgraced slashdot.
Thanks for correcting that.

A better concept

[Rob the Bold]

Don't provide any information to the government you don't feel that you should. Common sense tells us that we have a government run amok. Private citizens should judge the law and resist injustice. The law can be wrong, and it's up to the people to change it.

It is not necessarily in your interests as a (scare quote) journalist (scare quote) to speak up. I can think of no better way than to get treated as a plant than to start narcing on you sources. Then what would get published?

Re:A better concept

[Ribbo.com]

It's not a source if you're taking video footage of someone. Video footage is primary information, one that has come directly from you. Asking someone a question about an event is secondary information. There are laws protecting journalists being forced to give up their sources, but this was not a case of that, since by how I understand it, he took the video himself.

Re:A better concept

[Oligonicella]

"Common sense tells us that we have a government run amok."

Really? I don't think we do. You saying I have no common sense? Me? I think you're too paranoid which is affecting your commons sense.

"Private citizens should judge the law and resist injustice."

They should also not whine about the results. By the way, what 'injustice' was there in the authorities wanting to arrest the felons?

No, there is no slippery slope.

[porkchop_d_clown]

There is no constitutional right to obstruct an investigation. Quite the reverse. Journalist shields laws are inane precisely because of cases like this.

What is a journalist? In an era when every single one of us "publishes" online, why aren't we all journalists? Given that we are, by any sane definition, all we have to do whenever subpoenaed is assert our right as journalists to keep our information to ourselves just in case we want to publish them.

Even prior to this era, shield laws created a special, unregulated, class of citizen: "The Journalist." Unlike every other type of American, Journalists are permitted to keep secrets without oversight. While the government is supposed to conduct all it's operations in public, while celebrities have no expectation of privacy whatsoever, while intimate details of all of our lives have alway been available to anyone who wandered down to the county courthouse, we have decided that noble Journalists are uniquely trustworthy and do not require any scrutiny of their motives and actions?

Feh.

Re:No, there is no slippery slope.

[voice_of_all_reason]

The constitution does not give rights. They are inalienable. By default you have the right to do anything.

It says first what the government can do (Articles), what they cannot (Bill of Rights), then says the states can choose to restrict rights as they see fit (Penal Codes). Anything else remains a right.

In other news

[canUbeleiveIT]

The National Writer's Union, which represents freelance writers, said in a statement that Wolf should never have been jailed.

In other news, the RIAA says that music should never be copied, the Postal Worker's Union says that postal workers deserve a raise, and NAMBLA says that old perverts should be free to bugger young boys.

I think that's exactly right.

[porkchop_d_clown]

I understand the desire of bloggers to be taken seriously as journalists, but these shield laws are insane - for all journalists.

Consider: I videotape my buddy raping a girl, and I publish it on Youtube but I black out his face. What sane society would prevent the cops from locking me up till I produced my buddy's name? Similarly, what if the year is 1970 and I just took notes describing the rape and I published them in some mimeographed pamphlet?

The first amendment is not a blanket for covering up crimes.

Re:I think that's exactly right.

[bsane]

I understand what your getting at, but your examples are already well covered by federal and state law. Specifically, the state could not compell me to testify, because doing so would incriminate me. They could however prosucute me for the crimes that I did comit (being an accessory for example).

In other words: what your describing would be illegal for anyone in the country, whether or not they claimed to be a journalist.

You're already protected in that case.

[porkchop_d_clown]

If you fear self-incrimination, that's covered by the 5th amendment, not the first. There is no need for a special class of citizen who has special rights that the rest of us don't have.

Re:You're already protected in that case.

[bsane]

If you fear self-incrimination, that's covered by the 5th amendment, not the first. There is no need for a special class of citizen who has special rights that the rest of us don't have.

I think thats what I said (or what I meant at any rate)...

In your original example there is no way someone could use their status as 'press' to prevent legal action. I see your original point about letting people get away with things just because they're considered 'press', but I can't think of any good examples- I can't buy yours because the 'journalist' is actually involved in the crime (I know thats not what you intended, but I cant see it being handled any other way).

Blogging is not a crime!

[Anonymous Coward]

The can try to muzzle us but our legions will just continue to grow. For every blogger they try to stop, 100 more will join the ranks.

Re:Blogging is not a crime!

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up faggot nobody really cares about what you had for breakfast and that you made sure you didn't shower before you went to your gay sex rally on the lawn of your state capital

What Crap

[sycodon]

If this guy knows of some "anarchist" (asshole pis ant) commmiting arson or assaulting a police office, then he has a legal and moral obligation to come forward. If he doesn't, then all he to do was give them the tape and testify that he didn't see anything.

Journalist have too high an opinion of themselves. They publish things from "anonymous" sources (made up, fake but accurate) and then hide behind the 1st to avoid getting caught. They spin facts to meet their political agendas (which they all have...ever hear of Advocacy Journalism?)and omit facts that don't back their interpretation of events.

What was best was him talking about his "ethics". If his ethics allow for arson and assault, then I guess I could whack him upside the head and burn his house down around him.

Re:What Crap

[toddhisattva]

What was best was him talking about his "ethics".

That had me laughing too.

Unless -- the video shows that he damaged the car. In which case his Fifth Amendment right is inviolable.

It happens all too often that journalists are participants. Observation is replaced by activism. And they are too indoctrinated to notice or care.

Treason is the highest form of patriotism.

Or so it would seem.

Re:What Crap

[Lacrymology]

Oh my god, you people are SO blind that I don't know if to laugh or cry, or pitty you, or all at once. As Ani DiFranco says "mind control is deep here". There's NOTHING more important than the people and their right to know. You're here, and that means you have SOME connection with geekiness and in the deepest depths, hackerdom, and the only reason they've been demonized and misstreated all these decades is solely because of their stride for free-ness of information. What's the need of hiding a video with people vandalizing a police car? it is surely not more important than SHOWING a video with a police officer hurting a citizen for making use of their freedom of speech and thought? Anyone remember the investigations on anti-bushers right after 9/11? or the.. don't know the english for it, but all the police killings (policemen killing, not the other way around) in the 80's ("who watches the watchmen", anyone?). But you americans are so gullible and brainwashed by your government, and patched up with your cars and your credit cards, and microwave ovens that you can't see that nothing your press is able to tell you is clean, un-meddled-with truth, and when you come across one of those, YOU ACTUALLY SAY THEY SHOULD BE IN PRISSION for not wanting to STOP showing it. I would be sorry for you, if your votes wouldn't put in jeopardy the freedom of most countries in the world. Being this so, I'm scared.. very very scared. I can't but hope the Empire falls quick and hard, ASAP, and someone gets the sense in putting some education in you lot. For the time being, I'd start by reading some Canadian press, or something. Might give you a brain.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't, actually. They have been given rights that the protesters do not (see among other things the sentences for killing one of either group under roughly the same conditions). This is ridiculous, since the police, acting not as private citizens but as representatives of the government, clearly ought to have fewer rights while on-duty than ordinary citizens.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Entrope]

California has a law which says California judges cannot hold him in contempt. That California law has no hold on Federal judges, so it is frivolous to say that "the Federal government doesn't respect that". Thankfully, no state has no right to unilaterally make laws that affect the rest of the country.

This person filmed a public scene and presumably made no promises or representation of confidentiality to the subjects of this investigation. (If he did make such a promise, he would probably be exposed to a variety of other charges.) The primary reason he withholds the video is out of sympathy with the rioters and a desire to protect violent felons. Any non-news-gatherer doing the same thing would rightly be held in contempt. This aspect of California's shield law is unreasonably and unfairly protective of a particular profession.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[SL Baur]

Federal law supersedes state law The 10th Amendment says you're wrong.

That;s not the way grand juries work

[Anonymous Coward]

So, we should toss our entire grand jury system that's used to indict people just the accommodate one jackass's attempt to hide the crimes of his twerp anarchist buddies?

You are aware that the entire purpose of a grand jury is a check on unlimited prosecutorial power to indict anyone?

And that such an in camera review in lieu of presenting the evidence to a grand jury could be a pretty substantial violation of the civil rights of anyone charged as a result of evidence gleaned from the video, since it would not have been "filtered" differently from other information used in the grand jury process?

But no, we all should jump through hoops in order to protect some wet-behind-the-ears, sheltered slacker who filmed his anarchist buddies running amok?

There's no way we should go to some sort of secret review of evidence by members of the criminal justice system instead of citizens on a grand jury just for this one pretentious prick. So fuck that, fuck him, and, most of all, fuck you.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Perhaps the advantage is preservation of a right? Are there other rights you would consider it "silly" to go to jail to protect? In actuality only the State of CA recognizes this right, and the Feds seem to want to go out of there way under this administration to squash any sense of state's rights.

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[Chmcginn]

Actually, it's exactly backward. He was willing to release the tape, but not to testify.

But, yeah, there were other witnessess to the crime, so I don't entirely get why they were going after him so hard. Nor why it become a federal matter in the first place.

Immorality

[Atheose]

"The Law can be wrong, and it's up to the people to change it."

Sorry bud, but I think most of us will agree that setting fire to a police car and giving a cop a concussion SHOULD be against the law. Common sense tells you that you should provide information to the government that leads to the arrest of criminals, and it is immoral to do otherwise.

Re:Immorality

[Anonymous Coward]

The Law and Justice are two different things. gb2school noob.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[DaHat]

> The 10th Amendment says you're wrong.

And 231 years of US history says you are wrong.

Sure the 10th amendment seems pretty clear... there are many work arounds both legislative and judicial that have caused federal law to trump state and local.

One skull-crushed cop, one free journalist. Win!

[FatSean]

That's right dipshit. Score one for Freedom of Speech and a blow against the building police state. When my government can surveil me with no evidence trail, something is wrong, and I believe a suitable action is to simply not cooperate.

Just like Josh Wolf did. He didn't hurt anyone, but he's not going to help out the police who were abusing him and his fellow protestors.

That's called having principles.

Re:Attn. Linux Users

[painQuin]

off topic even more so, but it's because the admins of the site would rather we focus on promoting over demoting - it says so on the moderation guidelines, thus there's no point to demoting something if it's already at -1

Paying people fot spying demonstrations

[Anonymous Coward]

In my country police pay cameraman to shoot people in demonstrations, I don't understand why US Police or court wish to get that without paying.

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[Anonymous Coward]

> But, yeah, there were other witnessess to the crime, so I don't entirely get why they were going after him so hard.

Because they didn't gave a shit about the so-called "crime". They beleived (rightly or wrongly) that he knew the identity of the masked guys (you know police state, making files on citizen, infiltration, etc, etc). So they wanted to get him to testify under oath, and them ask him the questions:
- "Do you know this person ?"
- Yes
- "What is his name ?"
- "John Smith"

repeat for all masked person on the tape, regardless of what they did.

> Nor why it become a federal matter in the first place.

Because the police department got some federal funds, so every thing the police owns is partially federal, inluding the fucking car that got a flashlight broken. That is a very very scary path to follow.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

right, but the only reason that this is getting into a federal court is that the federal government directly gives funds to the SFPD for anti terrorist purposes, and now claims that it owns 5% of the police cruiser, so can become involved in the case.
Any reasonable person can see that this is not a federal matter, that it should be 'tried' (it's at grand jury stage) in a California court and that California's shield law should therefore apply.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Anonymous Coward]

protesters that vandalized a police car.

And that was the creative way that the fucking feds intruded themselves into the situation -- they asserted that, as long as a few federal pennies had gone into the purchase of the police car, they had standing to jump in and prosecute, and to demand release of the "evidence". The cynical fuckers, using that kind of pretense to expand federal power. I wonder if they'd be willing to make a burglary of my house a federal case just because the legal description of my property is based on the federal survey of US lands.

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[Chmcginn]

Because the police department got some federal funds, so every thing the police owns is partially federal, inluding the fucking car that got a flashlight broken. That is a very very scary path to follow.

That's it exactly - I don't understand that. Does that mean that the kids putting grafitti on the I-64 overpass near my house are committing a federal crime? I'm going to doubt that anyone is going to claim that, so why is this any different?

Note:People (here & the media) keep bringing up the cop that got assaulted. That was never a part of this case, because it was a state crime... and California has the shield law the federal government is lacking.

**NOT** a matter of a fractured skull

[LandruBek]

This has practically NOTHING to do with that fractured skull. This case was a federal terrorism investigation, not a case of assault. Assault is a matter of California law. As I gather, Wolf asserts that the federal government has no standing here (though they claim it).

The feds' logic is something like, "A violent crime has been committed, so tell me your password." It's a non-sequitur; the assault is just a pretext. Wolf's refusal is not really related to punishing that crime, and the feds are not going to help the wounded cop either. The feds just want to know who to watch.

A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism.

Re:**NOT** a matter of a fractured skull

[Anonymous Coward]

A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism.

Of course it is. The anti-globalization protesters know that they are not influencing a majority with peaceful protests. The constant escalation of violence at their "protests" is in fact terrorism; they hope to accomplish with violence what they cannot do via persuasion. Violence in pursuit of political goals is practically the definition of terrorism.

Re:Attn. Linux Users

[pipingguy]

Which moderator guidelines are you reading? The one I read tries to tell me to downgrade crap messages. There's no way I could possibly do this.

It is **NOT** a police investigation

[LandruBek]

He isn't withholding information from a police investigation because this isn't a police investigation. It's a federal terrorism investigation. The federal prosecutor is alleging that these people have engaged in terrorism. That is a repulsive accusation: the truth is, the video shows a sad case of a political protest turned violent. Protest is a first amendment liberty ("petition for redress"), and the violence here was a bad thing. But there is no way to color this picture as terrorism.

The assault on the police officer is in the bailiwick of the state of California, not the federal government. Everyone seems to be confusing those two. FWIW I hope California has caught the guy who did this assault.

Re:It is **NOT** a police investigation

[Ribbo.com]

Semantics. So he justifies to himself not handing the video over to authorities because they think it's a different crime than he thinks it actually is? Surely the video would help clear up that it's NOT terrorism. I don't see how an individual thinks he should decide on what should be done. Follow the proper procedures and have some faith in the legal system.

Re:It is **NOT** a police investigation

[LandruBek]

Surely the video would help clear up that it's NOT terrorism.

You are conflating the authorities -- California and federal. This protest was an event that, on its face, is not terrorism. And as you know from TFA, he was willing to show the video it to a judge. He was willing to compromise. But he wasn't willing to name names of who was present. The prosecutor even said that the tape alone was not enough. He was being compelled to list the names of who he thought was there, "because they might be terrorists." That is absurd.

The problem here is that the government can cry "terrorism" at any form of protest. I don't see how an individual can conscientiously go along with such a program. If the legal system is used for oppression then it is unworthy of one's faith.

What compelling rhetoric.

[LandruBek]

It's like reading Cicero.

You don't understand the power play that is going on here. This is arguably not really about the criminal justice system, because there is no Federal crime here. A California crime, yes, but not a federal crime. Journalist shield laws are pretty well established -- if you think that is jumping through hoops, then so be it, but yes we do all need to jump through these hoops to try to keep our (already enfeebled) press somewhat healthy and independent. The states already have journalist shield laws; Calfornia has one that has protected Wolf from going through this harrassment at the state level. We need a federal shield law too, apparently -- the Valerie Plame affair is more evidence.

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[LandruBek]

WTF dude, a cop was almost killed and you refuse to hand over the tape?

Look into it a bit more. That assault is not the issue. This case was pushed by a federal prosecutor who was not out to provide justice for that police officer (a California state employee, who is protected under California law). He was out to label these protestors terrorists. Which is absurd, and chilling -- something worth resisting. Almost everyone is conflating the assault with the contempt-of-court finding, but they are different.

As I said above, "A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism."

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[russotto]

Once they got him in front of a grand jury, the grand jury could ask him anything and he'd be compelled to answer. Without the benefit of a lawyer, either. That's what he was trying to avoid.

Re:When your news content model consists of merely

[Anonymous Coward]

> That's it exactly - I don't understand that. Does that mean that the kids putting grafitti on the I-64 overpass near my house are committing a federal crime? I'm going to doubt that anyone is going to claim that, so why is this any different?

If they need it, they will say the kid committed a federal crime. Or that he urinated in public and is now a sex offender. Or that he is menacing national security...

The idea is that all citizen are going to be guilty of something and the govt will be able to selectively choose who he want to go after. Nothing new. A bit sad, but not new...

Re:Blogger jailed?

[pfleming]

When I was studying journalism - television production - our teacher told us to bulk erase our source tapes or reuse them. The idea is that it can't be subpoenaed if it doesn't exist. I'm guessing this is based on his participation in the Kent State riots... but I'm not positive.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Smallpond]

And what federal law was broken? It doesn't bother you that the federal government can detain someone for over 7 months because someone wants to get around a state law? Regardless of what you think of the CA law, the federal court overstepped its boundaries.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Entrope]

I do not know if it is codified in Federal law, but when a judge orders you to testify, and you refuse, you are in contempt of court, and the judge may order you jailed you until you comply. That concept predates the United States and exists in all common law countries. (Civil law countries generally give judges even more power.)

The grand jury investigation in the background of all this is a Federal one -- the Federal connection seems rather shaky, but Mr. Wolf does not seem to challenge the investigation's basis. Since it is a Federal investigation, it is in a Federal court, which follows Federal rules, and is not bound by restrictions on California courts. That does not bother me. What would bother me is if California were generally allowed to preempt Federal law.

Josh Wolf interviewed recently on Democracy Now

[doom]

"Democracy Now" ran an interview with Josh Wolf last Wednesday, on April 4th, shortly after he was released: Imprisoned Journalist Josh Wolf Released After Record 225 Days in Jail. Audio files are available for download there, along with a transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: And just to explain, you were protected by the California journalist shield law, but we don't have a federal journalist shield law. And because -- at least the argument the US attorney used, because there was some money that went into the buying of the police car that they say there was an alleged arson against, then that put you in a different category?

JOSH WOLF: Right, it's not exactly that it put me in a different category. That's what allowed the federal government to get involved, because the 14th Amendment says that there are certain things that are the state's matter of order, and there are certain things that are within federal limits. And this shouldn't have been able to even be accessible by the federal government. They basically used this whole "well, there's some money in the police department" as a crux to get their hands into the situation and to circumvent the California State shield law. So that further shows why we need a federal shield law. If it's protected in forty-nine states and the federal government can just make an inroad around the federal shield law, then this can affect independent journalists like myself, but also mainstream media just as equally. In fact, the argument that I wasn't a journalist, which the US attorney tried to put forward, didn't even come about until after I had been incarcerated.

Re:Josh Wolf interviewed recently on Democracy Now

[doom]

I like this quote, too:

A free press is not something that the government is very fond of, and they're going to do everything to try to stop that. And it's time for us to realize how important it is for the free flow of information, because news is what you don't -- what people don't want you to know. Everything else is PR.

Perhaps opinion has changed

[gillbates]

But what of our responsibility to our fellow neighbors?

We hear so much about first amendment freedoms, but we don't hear about the flip side of crimes that remain unsolved because the investigative ability of law enforcement is hampered by self-righteous individuals.

If I had had my skull cracked by a protester, I would be very angry if someone who saw the incident, or knew the identity of the perpetrator, refused to testify because he thought himself a journalist. If the goal of a journalist is to report the news, why would they refrain from telling law enforcement what happened? Or is it more likely that the so-called journalist is attempting to skew the public's perception of the event toward his own prejudices? If journalists are really supposed to be fair and unbiased, why would they withhold information from both the public and law enforcement?

I understand full well the problem of maintaining individual rights against a police state. But in this case, a journalist was asked to testify to what he saw in public. There was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality between the protesters and Josh Wolf. It was not as if he was asked to reveal the confidential sources to his reporting (which the FBI has done before, btw). He was asked simply to testify to what he had seen in public.

Our first amendment freedoms are important. But this case hinges lightly on first amendment freedoms and heavily upon individual responsibility. Your exercise of your first amendment rights ends when they are used to deny justice to others. This case does not revolve around the crux of the issue of abuse of police authority. Instead, a grand jury compelled him to testify, and he refused. Basically, two branches of government were in agreement, which means that the checks and balances of the system were preserved. So in this case, our government worked as intended. What Josh seems to have forgotten is that his responsibility as a journalist is to preserve justice in society, rather than prevent it.

If we as Americans are not willing to make sacrifices in defense of our liberties, our liberties - Constitutional or otherwise - are already in mortal peril. But we should not forget that our liberties come with certain responsibilities to our neighbor as well. We could not be a free society if the police were unable to maintain order in the streets.

PWN3D

[madsheep]

I find it humorous he spent over 200 days in jail and then turned over the video anyway! Call me flamebait, but "LOLOMFGWTFBBQ WHAT A LOSER" comes to mind. Now if he ends up actually making money off this some how, then good for him. Otherwise, what a waste of time, and I hope he didn't drop the soap.

Re:Blogger jailed?

[gdrumm0356]

I agree that law enforcement officers should restrain themselves from doing the same violence to the protesters that the protesters are doing to them, but the policeman still has the same rights as the protesters. This includes, to name just one, the right to life!

I could see this clusterf**k if the government executive branch, AND the judicial branch, were trying to SILENCE the blogger, but this seems to be a simple case of refusing to provide evidence in a federal investigation.

OT:
The fact that the last 46 years (40-Dem) has seen the feds manipulate the states into accepting federal funding, our taxes, to finance the local police department's equipment, only shows how big we have allowed the government to get. Or possibly, how stupid we are for not keeping our congress under control. If congress mandates actions to the states, but also provides the funding, they own it!

Look at the educational system as an example. The more the feds mandate, the more it costs, and the more the feds pay BACK to the states, and the worse the educational system gets. Education was supposed to be a local effort, but in NE State Law requires n-hours of multicultural education to graduate, but without any requirements to be able to read, write, or do any math...

Re:Blogger jailed?

[Smallpond]

Your concern is backwards. According to the US constitution, all powers not delineated by the constitution are reserved to the states and the people, not vice versa.

Torture also predates US law and might have been used to force Mr Wolf to testify. Although it is illegal (in most cases), clever prosecutors might find a way to get around the law, just as they did with the protection for journalists. After all, getting a conviction while staying within the letter of the law is all that matters. Not upholding the spirit of the law, right?