Who knows about Josh Wolf?

jg_v7n · 02-07-2007, 12:13 PM

Josh Wolf is a freelance journalist who was jailed by a U.S. district court on August 1, 2006 for refusing to turn over a collection of videos he recorded during a July 2005 demonstration in San Francisco, California.

February 7, 2007 marked the 169th day of Wolf's imprisonment, the longest a journalist has been held in contempt for refusing to divulge privileged material.

He writes in his blog here: http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/?p=302

maldives · 02-07-2007, 12:23 PM

I have no clue!

jg_v7n · 02-07-2007, 12:26 PM

Well, you do now.

Ferre · 02-07-2007, 01:07 PM

Guess what? I knew about it. I even made an attempt to inform people on these boards...

http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/4...ury-judge.html

jg_v7n · 02-07-2007, 01:17 PM

Well, the story (belatedly) spreads...

Ferre · 02-07-2007, 01:19 PM

It should.

jg_v7n · 02-07-2007, 01:24 PM

I'm a bit confused by this. What are the rules that regulate this. If he witnessed a crime, or allegedly witnessed a crime is (should) he be obliged to supply the evidence? Do journalists in general have special dispensation? This must happen often, no? Especially to investigative journalists?

Ferre · 02-07-2007, 02:09 PM

I happen to carry an official presscard (press association), and as far as I know, a journalist is, legally, a neutral observer who witnesses things for the public, not for the government, there are government investigators for that job. Journalists, by law, do not have to reveil their sources and they also do not need to hand over their footage to any authorities.

My guess is that the US government is looking to create an easy presedent, he is an independent journalist, a blogger who does not write for any printed media, but a journalist nevertheless. The US government knows that no newspaper or press association wil send protests and expensive lawyers to fight this case and the government is creating an official documented court presedent for future cases.

This in order for them to declare that other courts have ruled in favor of the state in the past, when they start to round up journalists for the same reasons in the future.

In my opinion, Josh Wolf is a guinney pig, the US government is looking how far ity can go with trampling on civil rights. Normally, all major newspapers and other news agencies should be outraged, makes you wonder why that's not the case now doesn't it?

jg_v7n · 02-07-2007, 02:21 PM

I guess that it kindda hinges on whether he is actually a Journalist or not. If he's just a guy that writes a blog, you might well expect different laws to apply. 6 months in jail does seem a little excessive however.

**South** · 02-07-2007, 09:08 PM

80 plus % of my media years have been in fluff media (entertainment) so I've never found myself in the situation, but here's my understanding.

There is no particular privilidge for media to withhold source information in a criminal trail. (Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972). It's not like a doctor / patient priviledge where a patients fear of information being made public would cause the patient to be withholding, therefore hindering treatment.

There are many, many documented cases of jounalists going to lockup to withhold sources. These cases are usually dropped quickly because by and large the system doesn't consider the jounalists malicious, but rather noble to the profession. I think in most cases judges understand that proper reporting cannot go on if people are afraid to speak to reporters. Many journalists consider the short stints in jail badges of honor.

On the other side of that, a journalist or any citizen capturing video of a crime is under no such restraint. The video he spoke of in his blog was not taken under any assumed confidentaility, and so there's no agreement of confidentiality to break. He's using the journalist angle in his defense, but I don't think it's valid in this instance. In this case he's not a jounalist protecting a source, he by his own admission is a citizen refusing to cooperate with the court because he personally disagrees with how be thinks the information will be used. What he taped was a public display.

I sympathize with his position, and I respect the fact that he's willing to do the time. Not many people today have the backbone to hold to conviction.

Ferre · 02-08-2007, 01:16 AM

It was private footage of a demonstration South. During that demonstration the backlights of a police vehicle got damaged. We hardly call that 'crime' down here, all the police (Homeland SSecurity) wants is his footage of the demonstrators.

The nazi-department should buy their own video cameras.

zcoder · 02-09-2007, 10:59 AM

The crime of damaging a police vehicle's backlights is not a serious crime.
But obstruction of justice is.

Zcoder....