Posted on 02/27/2007 1:30:29 PM PST by SmithL
JOSH WOLF, the blogger who has spent some six months in prison for refusing to hand over a video he took of a violent July 8, 2005, protest in the Mission District of San Francisco to a federal grand jury, is not a journalist.
He is a blogger with an agenda and a camera, who sold a "selected portion" of the video of the demonstration, which left a San Francisco police officer with a fractured skull, to KRON-TV. The day after the melee, Wolf called himself on his videoblog an "artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist." He does not work for a news organization. He does not answer to editors who fact check. I do not understand why newspapers -- including The Chronicle -- refer to him as the "longest-imprisoned journalist" in America.
Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-S.F., who has spoken at Wolf fundraisers, told me, "I think he, and those who are doing similar kind of work, is in the process of redefining what a journalist is relative to 21st century technology." In this brave new world, no definition is sacred any more. But a camera and a Web site do not a journalist make, any more than shooting a criminal makes a vigilante a cop.
Wolf likes to put himself in the company of real journalists, such as The Chronicle's Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, who risked going to jail in order to protect their confidential source in the BALCO story. But unlike Fainaru-Wada and Williams, Wolf had no confidential source agreement. He was filming public protests; those protesters had no expectation of privacy.
. . . Alas, in the Special City, attacking a gay man is a hate crime, while attacking a gay cop can be a cause celebre.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No press pass?
i say he stays there til he releases the tape. Period.
If the perp commits a murder while they are waiting for the tape, charge him with accessory.
He's no journalist, he's a participant.
Correct.
Exactly.
and in his own words, an anarchist. Self incrimination is good enough for me. Send him to gitmo, plenty of stories down there for an infidel.
No press credentials, no First Amendment protection. Rot in jail, maggot.
Jouralism is a trade, not a profession. Anyone claiming to be a jouralist is a journalist.
That said, like any other journalist, he has no special powers to exempt him from the laws of the United States.
Wrong.
A "Freedom of the Press" that only protects those the government deems to be 'members of the press' is no freedom of the press at all.
Stalinist Russia could have been said to have 'freedom of the press' if that's the definition, so could Nazi Germany.
Freedom of the press has to protect everyone who wants to publish stuff equally, professional, amateur, pro-government, anti-government (even to the point of being an anarchist).
Fortunately for all of us the Government does not get to license the press in America.
Possession of a "Press Pass" may be some local courtesy that allows reporters to cross police lines or whatever, but it's proof of nothing. Many of the people who insighted the American Revolution were more like bloggers - anonymous phamphletiers.
Journalism is not, and cannot be, a licensed profession. That would be profoundly incompatible with a free press.
That's one reason that we mostly don't have too many special rules for journalists, nor should we. It would be a very convenient out for a lot of people.
I pretty much agree with everything Debra says about his stupidity and wretched behavior, but if had done the same things while working for the Examiner he would still deserve the same treatment.
No doubt this bothers Journalists no end. Doctors are the original profession that demands respect, via use of the Dr. honorific, and various little letters after it. Licensing and degrees keep the riff-raff from pretending they are doctors.
Lawyers have strive mightily to join the esteemed elite, with state bar exams, JD degrees and even the stilly new habit of putting Esq. on their correspondence.
I'm sure some journalists would like to follow suite. To be a 'journalist' would mean going to a accredited J-school, getting a license, etc.
I'm sure Hillary, the original leftist control freak, would like this idea a lot. It's not clear that Debra was drawing that line, but her editors jumped to do so.
ma
Who cares? One of the worst aspects of a law that allows people in "the media" to avoid divulging sources is that it treats some jack@ss with a press pass as a different class of citizen than "ordinary" people.
In this age of on-line blogs, internet media, etc., there should be no distinction in the law between someone in the media and anyone else in this country. In fact, I would suggest that some of the posts I've seen here on FreeRepublic are vastly superior in terms of content and truthfulness than most of what I used to read in newspapers.
I enjoyed making press passes for my photograhper friends all through the 1990s. I'm really good at it. They have as much right to pin cool little plastic encased badges with the words PRESS and Working PRESS as any jackass from the LA Times.
He does not have the "freedom" to withhold evidence. he's in trouble for withholding evidence, not for being an anarchist. You're the one who's "Wrong". Read the article.
Then your post to which I was replying was nonsensical: press credentials are neither here nor there.
If there is a special right to protect sources for journalists, based on the first amendment, it has to apply to all journalists, not government certified journalists, otherwise the First Amendment is subverted. If there isn't then press-pass or not is irrelevant.
Then your post to which I was replying was nonsensical: press credentials are neither here nor there.
If there is a special right to protect sources for journalists, based on the first amendment, it has to apply to all journalists, not government certified journalists, otherwise the First Amendment is subverted. If there isn't then press-pass or not is irrelevant.
Wrong. A camera and a web site, or any other means of generating and disseminating news content suffice to make anyone using them a journalist.
It's legally irrelevant what label or credential he has or lacks. He has material evidence in a criminal investigation that has been duly subpoenaed. It remains his *property*, but he must let the subpoenaing officials have a look-see -- or else enjoy his new address indefinitely.
Just imagine if the fellow were instead aligned with a far-RIGHT mindset, and were refusing to turn over the only tape of (say) a bunch of KKK types beating the crap out of some helpless women, minorities, etc. Do we suppose that the folks in SF would be sympathetic to him then? Heck no (and for once they'd be correct). The standard must apply equally no matter what his VIEWS are.
They're bitter because they want people to believe that there is something, anything, about a reporter, oh, excuse me, a "journalist", that distinguishes them from any other ink-stained wretch.
There isn't, really. In fact, the 1st Amendment that guarantees the right to freedom of speech, is as individual as the 2nd Amendment, that guarantees the right to bear arms.
There is nothing that says you only have the right to speech if you work in a media conglomerate, any more than you only have a right to have a gun if you are a policeman or soldier.
In fact, the right of a "journalist to protect their sources" should not be a hair's difference from the right of any citizen "with publishable information and intent to publish", to protect that information from authorities bent on seizing it for their own purposes.
In either case, the overriding concern is getting that information out to the public, and beyond the grasp of those who would use their political or police power to suppress it, to protect themselves and their interests.
Now, importantly, this should only give either the "journalist" or the everyman a *right to publish*. If the information they publish or their sources have information about a crime, then they might and should be compelled to reveal that information *after they have published it*.
They should not, with a few exceptions, have any right to sit on or refuse to divulge information about criminal acts, either because they "feel like it", or "might publish it someday".
The exception being if that information is only provided to them on condition of anonymity, *and* with the expectation that unlawful retribution would happen to whoever divulged that information were their identity to become known.
It should *not* be able to be hidden from the authorities if the informant just has an expectation of being charged with criminal acts related to the information.
That is, if they give a tape to the reporter of them committing a crime, such as a violent assault, and featuring that crime, then their identity would have to be divulged to the authorities.
If, however, they give a tape to the reporter of them committing a minor offense, such as trespassing, to record a major offense by someone else, such as pouring toxic waste into a public sewer, while paying off an inspector, then their identity could be protected, if there was a reasonable assumption *by the reporter* that it would seriously endanger their informant.
Now, in this case, the man who recorded the riot should have the right to publish his tape in whatever medium he chooses. However, after a short interval, because that tape may show a criminal act, he should be compelled to give it up to the authorities.
The government should not be permitted to prevent its publication, but he should have no right to prevent its use in a criminal investigation.
So he gets his rights, and the police should get the tape.
I agree, however, who is the judge of treason and sedition becomes an important question, and I would love to go a step further, and say outright deception and lies aren't protected either, but then the judgement becomes even more important. The founders had it right. The more speech and the press are free the less we need to worry about oppressive government.
The intertwining nature of all the rights enumerated in the Constitution, play off one another, and I suspect as has generally been the case for two hundred plus years, we needn't get too hung up on what speech or press is or isn't, allowed.
Those who truly value their rights and freedom will know what is truth and what is deception, and what to believe and what not to believe, despite the majority of journalists with advanced degrees from the Joseph Geobbels school of journalism.
There will always be those ignorant souls who will remain ignorant despite the truth staring them in the face.
He's not charged with sedition or printing secrets, which might be a species of treason. He's charged with withholding evidence. There are precedents which provide for protection of sources, if they apply only to government recognized professional journalists, the next step is other aspects of press freedom apply only to government recognized professional journalists. At that point, I think the Founders would suggest that sedition and treason have become admirable in the defense of liberty, just as sedition and treason against the Crown were in 1776.
I think I disagree with this. If I were (as a private citizen) speaking about something and I had sources which wished to remain anonymous i don't think the Constitution says i have to apply for and be granted a 'press pass' to do this. (I am seriously not meaning to be petty about this)
The reason I state this is because this guy did not do anything requiring a first amendment freedom. He (accidentally, you can even say) witnessed a crime- an luckily caught that crime on tape. But for some bizarre reason thinks he has a 'first amendment right' to protect a criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.