Chris Pirillo’s brother?
This is an issue that goes beyond simple freedom of the press, it also impacts the freedom of speech of the protesters.
A freelance journalist and political activist was sent to federal prison Tuesday and could be held for nearly a year after refusing a grand jury’s demand that he turn over unaired videotapes of a 2005 anarchist demonstration in which protesters clashed with San Francisco police. U.S. District Judge William Alsup found Josh Wolf, 24, of San Francisco in contempt of court for failing to comply with a subpoena that the federal grand jury issued Feb.
Alsup rejected Wolf’s claim that a reporter has a right to withhold unpublished material, and he said federal prosecutors were seeking the videos for a legitimate investigation into a possible crime — the attempted burning of a San Francisco police car. “Every person, from the president of the United States down to you and me, has to give information to the grand jury if the grand jury wants it,” the judge said at the end of a 2 1/2-hour hearing in federal court in San Francisco.
The aspect that the Press should cooperate when a criminal investigation depends on the evidence involved is not new, but is it a valid argument? Would it lead to Judges basing every such request on an investigation created to support the request?
You also have to ask yourself……what does it mean to be a freelance journalist and a political activist? If blogs are protected by law, then anyone that has posted on one can claim they are a “freelance journalist”. Should everyone be protected like actual journalists? So which is this guys primary title? Is he first a journalist, or is he first an activist?
Since anyone can claim the status of “freelance journalist” this would give source and evidenciary protection to anyone with forsight.
To me, this person is not privy to the protections of real press. Therefore the argument is moot.
You don’t have the right to ignore subpoena’s. This is a grand jury which only decides to indict or not. Whether evidence is admissible is determined at trial or pretrial hearings. The constitution doesn’t grant the press any special rights or privileges.
Maybe he will meet a nice cell mate in the SF lock-up.
Why do so many people seem to think that “freedom of the press” and “free speech” mean “you aren’t allowed to hear what I said”?
If the journalist is holding evidence related to a criminal investigation, he has to turn it over or he is obstructing justice – potentially even aiding and abetting the commision of a crime.
I am immediately biased against his case, when he starts claiming it is his “right”… a hot-button issue for me. [grin]
Keeping that in mind, I find it interesting that the main point of contention seems to be:
Unless a journalist’s right to withhold unpublished and unaired material is recognized, “we’re not going to have Mr. Wolf or any reporters covering protests,” attorney Jose Luis Fuentes told Alsup. “Confidential sources are not going to come forward. They (journalists) are going to be viewed as investigative arms of the government.“
From that I see two issues:
1. A “reporter” can record a “protest”, decide what material to publish, and withhold everything not “aired” – even if the unaired material contains evidence relevent [for prosecution or defence] in a criminal trial.
I agree with protecting sources, but not withholding evidence. Why should someone have the right to withhold evidence that may help convict or exonerate a defendant?
Should this rise to the same level as Doctor, Lawyer, Priest, Spouse protections? I think not. Because, as Calin mentioned in #1: …this would give source and evidenciary protection to anyone with forsight.
2. “protesters” will suddenly realize the news media can be used against them, and… what?
A big, fat, hairy “D’uh!” to any who haven’t figured that out, yet.
Might that be why so many of “them” have been wearing masks/hoods… Worldwide. For decades, now?
A few recent posts on this blog have related to “the Police” being quite adverse to the video-taping of their actions, but “protesters” think they are immune?
I believe the whole point of public protest is to garner attention… protesters want media coverage. I doubt they want to scare away media coverage, so that they are left to “protest” in obscurity.
“‘Every person, from the president of the United States down to you and me, has to give information to the grand jury if the grand jury wants it,’ the judge said.”
Screw the grand jury.
During Martin Luther king jr. Protests, it has Finally come to be know that the CIA/FBI were Paying off some in the group to Start aggetating, and to cause damage, during the marches…So that the cops could come in.
This said.
If this was a public march, and a public incident, HE should show the Public tape.
The Protection of the Press is for Private knowledge of an private incident, that few know of.
“…it also impacts the freedom of speech of the protesters.”
So distruction of property is considered freedom of speech now?
—
It’s all clear to me now, the 1st Amendment doesn’t just recognize that all citizens have the right to freely publish (via a printing press or modern equivalent), but actually establishes a special class of citizens who do not have to abide by the same rules as everybody else. A “journalist” should not be able to withhold evidence any more than I can.
There were far more people there protesting legally than punks trashing things. Don’t those that acted properly deserve any consideration?
The destruction of civil liberties by any other name would smell just as corrupt.
-Tom
So the way to commit a crime is to have a reporter as an accomplice, and hand him all evidence afterwards.
Consideration about what? If they didn’t break the law, then nobody cares who they are, and none of this impacts they right to demonstrate anyway. The police are only interested in identifying the individuals who commited the act in question.
This is a non-issue Smartalix. He has no legal standing to ignore a grand jury subpoena. Period!!!
As far as the *good* anarchists, if they weren’t involved in the criminal act, they have no problems.
Freedom of the press dosen’t mean freedom of obeying the law or freeing a reporter of normal moral mores.
sorry….hit the button to fast….if the Appeals Court ruling back east yesterday against the New York Times and the phone call lists stands, this guy will have no grounds for appeal, it will take a lot of air out of the journalistic concept of being special.
A reporter should only be forced to hand over information when it is evidence of a crime. A reporter should not be forced to hand over information that would reveal the reporting (whistle blower) of a crime.
While it should be everyone’s duty to aid in the prevention and prosecution of crime, that same duty should not be used to intimidate or punish those who reveal wrong doings.
So, the accused should have no right to face their accuser? How refreshing……I think I’ll accuse the president of murder…..wait, been done already. Maybe I’ll accuse John Kerry of being two-faced…….nm, that’s been done as well.
Anyway, I’ll think of something to accuse someone of whatever I want, and my ability to know, and my reliability as a witness will never come into question.
A former reporter here. I think Calin comes closest to the nitty gritty. Wolf appears to be assuming the mantle of ‘journalist’ to avoid testifying before the grand jury. Shield laws are meant to protect sources, not a person who actually witnesses an event. Despite his lawyer’s bluster, Wolf does not have a legal leg to stand on.
Like many young ‘activists’ (many of whom will be happily working for The Man by the time they are 30), Wolf is naive enough to think he can use a pretext to escape responsibility. As about a dozen ELF and ALF members realized last week, that ain’t gonna happen.
So, the accused should have no right to face their accuser? How refreshing……I think I’ll accuse the president of murder…..wait, been done already. Maybe I’ll accuse John Kerry of being two-faced…….nm, that’s been done as well.
Anyway, I’ll think of something to accuse someone of whatever I want, and my ability to know, and my reliability as a witness will never come into question.
Comment by Calin — 8/2/2006 @ 5:10 pm
Tell us Calin, do they come with anymore ridiculous arguments then that? In any criminal trial, you are guaranteed to face your accusers and the evidence. All criminal trials require that evidence be presented; no evidence, no trial. A mere accusation is never grounds for a conviction, but it may be grounds for slander or libel.
“A reporter should not be forced to hand over information that would reveal the reporting (whistle blower) of a crime.”
You said it, not I.
The whistleblower is the accuser in this case.
Calin, a whistle blower is not the accuser. The accuser would be the one that swears out the complaint. In a criminal case that is almost always the Police.
a whistle blower ISNT an accussor..
It points out what is being done, and THEN an investigation SHOULD be done to prove it.