Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Colbert is a riot.
Wolf should never have been in jail for his stance on the First Amendment, but that haircut is sure worth a couple of months.
#2 – I don’t know… I’ve seen far worse hair. Paul Wolfowitz comes to mind.
Hey Hopper! Can I get a headshot of Wolfowitz’s bad haircut?
I agree never has so much silliness been made much of. He really makes bloggers out to be fools with bad haircuts. Joshua Wolf’s name should be changed to Salvating Poodle.
It was good to see that Sal could actually speak coherently. I was wondering because the video that caused him to be imprisoned for idiocy looked like it was shot by a flock of cormorants.
Really, I am not joking, I was waiting for him to say “Ow My Balls”
#4 and #5 – In other words, you don’t agree with this blogger’s politics.
I didn’t read the footnote on the Bill Of Rights that said Freedom of the Press is reserved for those who own big media concerns.
OFTLO – Here you go:
Wolfowitz
#4 brucemlloyd “yappy little poddle” is that yourself or Josh Wolf? What exactly differentiates you from Josh or Josh from Judith Miller?
I am trying to figure out, are you are trying to muzzle the global fount of ideas to only those pre-ordained sources as you would define?
Is not one of the ideas of the 1st amendment to allow the free market expression of ideas, with out government interference?
6 mnth imprisonment seems like extreme governmental interference or effective curtailment of free flowing fount of ideas, that is one of our citizen rights, free speech!
How else do you expect citizens to be informed voters???
I don’t understand Wolf’s position. He was a witness to a crime. It is his duty as a member of society to assist in the prosecution of that crime. The same as when people who witness illegal wiretapping taking place or the torturing of prisoners have a duty to report the crimes and assist in the prosecution of those crimes.
Nothing happened here that prevented the publication of any news or comment of the incident. So the “freedom of the Press” was never in doubt and never threatened.
12—from what I read at FrontlineInterview there really isn’t much of a “journalist” workproduct to protect. Josh video’d a public demonstration at which crimes may have taken place. No different than what you or I may video while on vacation?
I think the police should have access to such video’s. If he had been video’ing some group or people pursuant to an interview with them and statements before the protest as such, I could see more justification for protection.
Do you know of any facts that support a claim of “a journalist doing his job?”
#13, I am not sure what your looking for in your question.
Is he a Journalist? I would argue he is. He is publishing his text/findings as a Journalist does. I do not see a difference in either his work quality or kind. I think the facts presented amply support this.
Job? Humm…. I would argue he has made his publishing his job.
Facts??? Really Hummm…. The various facts are all over the various included and non-included Josh Wolf links. Since the facts are there, why your question???? #13 You seem very confused, hopefully it’s deliberate?
My question is, If Josh is a journalist ( I contend he is, by all the various facts, he is doing a journalist job) then is he legally obligated by federal law to aid an obviously state biased and selective police investigations?? What public good has been served?
14–I am a first amendment advocate–but I don’t like being simple minded about it–meaning have a single simple rule that applies all the time. Balancing tests are harder to apply as the values to be applied recognize that none of our freedoms are absolute.
So, If the rule was anything a journalist witnesses regardless of other circumstances is free from discovery, then we have a clean simple rule to apply. Now “I” dont think any protective rule should be that broad–soceity has other interests to protect besides a free press.
My point, as stated, was simply that as I read the reference, I didn’t see Josh actually performing any uniquely journalistic service, so I wondered if you knew of more facts that would show he was?
Perhaps only a phiffling point of no interest to most, but I find the areas between absolutist platitudes to be worthy of examination.
Gentlemen, attention please.
The expression is, “I couldn’t care less.”
Not, “I could care less.”
Thank you for your attention. I now return you to the regular blog.
#7 – Hopper, posting content appropriate images to blogs is your X-Man Mutant Power 🙂
Post #12 links to a site with a further link to an interview with Josh at
http://tinyurl.com/2fxwcd
He’s a pretty sharp guy. Looks to me his activities would have been protected by the California Shield Law as quoted ((but I wonder if case law makes it more complicated?)) but he was subpoenaed by the Feds where there is no shield law.
Interesting read for a number of other reasons.
#14, So he is a journalist. So what? He is also a witness to a crime. A police car being burned. Society is better served if he testifies to what he witnessed.
Apparently he witnessed a police officer assaulting a citizen. Society would be better off if that officer was made to answer for his crime.
Now how on earth did the government stop or interfere with his publishing anything about the demonstration? By his refusal to participate in his civic duty he wrote his own saga. If this is a nation of laws we can’t pick which laws we will obey and which we will ignore.
What he could have done is charged the police for the tape. If other professionals can charge the government for their expertise, then so should he have been able to.
#20 – He is not a witness to a crime. He has no footage of the alledged crime. In fact, by all accounts, the alleged crime never happened.
Read his Frontline Interview. He’s bright, articulate, and right.
21—He was at the event and he videotaped it. No court should take his word for it that there is nothing on the tape. Any court should agree to look at the tape privately to confirm Josh’s opinion.
Big pissing contest. Same guy wins everytime. ((The one in the black robe with police and jails to back his play.))
I think when the claim of Reports Shield is available, it should only apply when the journalist is actually performing as a journalist==not a simple surveilance film with no journalistic work involved in its production. This requires a balancing of interests, not a simple rule universally applied with its own set of injuries, problems, and injustices.