Blogger Freed After 226 Days in Jail For Contempt 224
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 California's shield law allows reporters to keep sources and unpublished material secret.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.'"
Re:Blogger jailed? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Blogger jailed? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Excuse me but (Score:3, Informative)
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:Real mature (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Delicate Balance (Score:5, Informative)
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 Although I feel that my unpublished material should be shielded from government demands, it was the testimony which I found to be the more egregious assault on my right and ethics as both a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".
You sir are wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A small matter of fructured skull (Score:3, Informative)
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:B.S. (Score:2, Informative)
Down the page just before the video.
http://joshwolf.net/blog/ [joshwolf.net]
Re:Attn. Linux Users (Score:1, Informative)
On topic - 226 days is amazing. Can't believe journalists aren't protected...
Re:Grand jury (Score:3, Informative)
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:So far everyone has missed the point... (Score:3, Informative)
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?
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:No, there is no slippery slope. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Attn. Linux Users (Score:2, Informative)
Re:When your news content model consists of merely (Score:5, Informative)
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:Blogger jailed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So far everyone has missed the point... (Score:3, Informative)
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:What Crap (Score:2, Informative)
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.