BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Jailed Blogger Could Spend a Year in Detention
Email
Print
ShareNovember 17, 2006 6:36 PM
A federal appeals court has refused to hear the case of blogger and freelance journalist, Josh Wolf, who now could end up spending almost a year in prison for his refusal to turn over unedited video of a San Francisco protest he filmed over a year ago.
Wolf posted footage of the 2005 violent protest on his blog, which was picked up by local and national media. During the filmed incident, a police car was vandalized.
Though Wolf denies he filmed the actual attack on the police car, in September a federal judge ordered him to testify and turn over all of the footage, which he refused. According to the new ruling, if he doesn't turn over the footage and his sources, he will remain in custody until July 2007, when the grand jury expires.
Lucie Morillon of Reporters Without Borders calls the federal appeals court decision "absurd."
"Josh Wolf is about to set a precedent as the longest reporter held in the United States for refusing to disclose his sources," Says Morillon. "He's not a criminal; he was just protecting his sources which is something many journalists have to do."
Dave Heller of the Media Law Resource Center, a legal organization specializing in First Amendment rights, says the burden should fall on the government to prove that a journalist's materials are absolutely needed for a case. He says Wolfe's jailing is especially troubling.
"The request for information to get his tapes does seem to be somewhat removed from the focus of the investigation, or at least nothing essential to it," says Heller. "In that setting, it's troublesome that the consequence for not cooperating is to be thrown into jail for a lengthy period of time."
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, who prosecuted the case against Wolf, says, "The incident is under investigation so that the grand jury can determine what, if any, crimes were committed," and, "This office did not initiate a federal investigation in order to circumvent the California State Shield Law."
Morillon says jailing journalists for protecting sources is becoming a "chilling trend" in the United States. "More and more journalists are being subpoenaed by federal courts; they are being forced to reveal their sources," she says. "If confidentiality of sources can't be granted, where is journalism going to go?"
Last month in the annual ranking of press freedom by Reporters Without Borders, the United States dropped nine places to number 53, in line with such countries as Botswana, Croatia and Tonga.
November 17, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (31)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Grammar and spelling errors do not matter to people today. It is just more evidence of how undisciplined and sloppy many people are in their writing.
Posted by: Mike | Nov 22, 2006 8:08:04 AM
"can anyone nowadays pay a few bucks a month to maintain a blog, publish anything they want, and then claim freedom of the press?"
YES
Until they outlaw the 1st Amendment.
Posted by: Blue Mark | Nov 22, 2006 6:05:41 PM
"can anyone nowadays pay a few bucks a month to maintain a blog, publish anything they want, and then claim freedom of the press?"
Wow... that really tells me how little some people know about the U.S.A. This is what we call the 1st Amendment, as noted above. It is what all journalism in our country rests upon.
Do you think a magic force created our large (credible) news organizations? A person's sense of fairness and journalistic integrity , not their medium of choice matters when discussing their credibility. This is equally as crucial and applicable for those journalists that work with multi-million dollar budgets as it is for those that work with hundred-dollar budgets. Anyone and everyone starts somewhere, but it's all based on the same principles.
Posted by: james | Nov 22, 2006 8:38:46 PM
what is the big deal here, the idiot was ordered to turn over the original tape, not his source. Make a copy of the tape, give it to the courts. This man is aiding a criminal by not providing the information. There is a huge difference between freedom of the press and what the hacks today are putting out as "news". It is sad that the MSM only wants to feed the public their biassed views as news, while doing what they can to hide the truth.
Posted by: repoman | Nov 27, 2006 2:47:45 PM
Great grammar:
"Josh Wolf is about to set a precedent as the longest reporter held in the United States for refusing to disclose his sources,"
How about:
"Josh Wolf is about to set a precedent as the reporter held longest in the United States for refusing to disclose his sources,"
I know it's picky, but you guys are Supposed to me literate writers, right?
Posted by: Mark | Nov 27, 2006 4:53:40 PM
It generally escapes mention in cases like this, but the Constitution and the 1st Amendment have no provision for a reporter being able to refuse to comply with court orders. "Protecting the source" is a figment of the imagination as far as law is concerned. If a reporter chooses to do so, it is entirely at his or her own risk of the consequences.
Posted by: Geezer | Nov 27, 2006 6:50:52 PM
Why are some people turning this into an excuse for liberal-bashing? Or media bashing? Conservative journalists want the same rights as all the others. As Geezer and others have pointed out, the "right" to "confidentiality of sources" DOES NOT EXIST as such; Wolf remains in violation of a court order and he's still in jail. SO HE'S NOT GETTING AWAY WITH ANYTHING HERE.
Personally, I agree that Wolf has an obligation to cooperate with the criminal investigation. If he has information that could be used as evidence of a violent crime, he would need a very, very good reason to justify holding it back. And he would have to be prepared to pay the price. On the other hand, it's not fair to assume that Wolf is already covering up the crime - in the article he denies he filmed the actual attack on the police car
Posted by: Jed Weber | Nov 28, 2006 1:58:20 AM
Free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press only belongs in a true democracy!
If someone can categorically state that they had the same viewpoint as the cameraman then they have an eye witness!
Perhaps there were other covert activities being enacted that the state wants to ensure remain secret - like possibly recognizable state interference.
Posted by: Jim McCracken | Nov 28, 2006 7:47:04 AM
I agree with the majority here. This person is another socialist punk. The USA is in the shape it is because we have allowed too much liberalism and "freedom" to the point that laws can't be inforced without violating some freak's civil rights. Teacher's can't teach, Policemen can't Police. Our country is going to hell in a handbasket and it's our own damn fault.
Posted by: mike | Nov 28, 2006 10:29:07 AM
I thought the article said that the video was posted on his website. why do they need the original?
and to mike:
too much liberalism is not at fault for the current state of of the united states. policeman police and teachers teach, they probably just don't do it the way you'd like them to, and that's your opinion.
I think our country is also kind of in decline but not because of "too much liberalism", I argue it's a mixture of liberalism and conservatism.
I'm sorry that you can only think in black and white. if our country has been going down after 6 yeards of republican rule in both national and state politics, that speaks volumes I'd say.
Posted by: matt | Dec 17, 2006 3:48:07 PM
TASERING IS A CRIME......
In such instances, AI reported in 2004, that the force used by Police Officers "VIOLATES" International Standards prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as International guidelines on police use of force.
A medical expert has informed AFP (American Free Press) that Taser energy can cause heart attacks, blood clots, and long term damage to vital organs.
Officers of the Peoria Police Department are unlawfully Tasering individual that have already been handcuffed.
Amnesty International recently reiterated its concerns about the use of the Taser Stun Gun on individuals who have already been handcuffed of placed in mechanical restraints.
Latoshia Fisher
Posted by: Latoshia Fisher | Aug 29, 2008 5:34:49 PM
Post a comment
