| The Longest Jailed Blogger in American History, A SHAME! |
[Feb. 7th, 2007|11:20 pm] |
2-8-07
The longest incarcerated journalist in American history for resisting a grand jury subpoena; Josh Wolf.
Has a nice ring to it don't you think? I have been covering Josh's episode since the beginning of his subpoena and never did I conceive that it could have gone so far.
It all began during a July 8th, 2005 anti-G8 protest in the acclaimed Mission district of San Francisco, California. Josh Wolf is an independent journalist videographer who maintains his videoblog www.joshwolf.net. Wolf specializes in covering the anarchist social movement in San Francisco and was one of the only journalist's that members of that coalition felt comfortable enough to speak to; distrusting most mainstream media reporters.
Wolf was in attendance at the July 8th protest acting in his capacity as a newsgather. Later in the night a disturbance broke out between protesters and a crowd of demonstrators. According to the San Francisco District Attorneys office and the National Lawyers Guild it was clear that this protest was exacerbated when a police officer drove his vehicle at a high rate of speed into a crowd of protesters, then got out and began swinging his batons wily nilly.(according to Ben Rosenberg, National Lawyers Guild)
Josh caught part of these unfortunate events on tape, and sold his footage to our local SF news media affiliates. After this coverage aired the federal government acting in there capacity as the Joint Terrorism Task Force or JTTF attempted to contact Wolf at his residence, asking him for his "cutting room floor" outtakes. Wolf has refused as a matter of principle based in part because the state of California and 30 other states have journalist shield laws that protect them from having to release their sources to the government. Unfortunately the Federal Government has no such law and in a premeditated effort to circumvent local authority the U.S. attorneys office convened a grand jury and subpoenaed not only josh's outtakes but his A/V recording equipment (hardware) as well (according to his appeal brief 9th cir). Josh refused to cooperate asserting his constitutional rights, one bears especial repeating;
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Now Webster defines abridge to mean;
DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH
What we have here the Federal government acting out a malicious attempt to abridge the Constitution.
Now some have argued both in the mainstream press and from the government perspective that Josh is not a real journalist.
What is a journalist?
According to the Supreme Court and various California Court of Appeals decisions the law regarding "Bloggers" is as follows;
Neither of the parties has directly addressed the question whether petitioners' Web sites may properly be viewed as "periodical publications." Amicus Bear Flag League, an association of "bloggers," comes nearest to the point by citing judicial authority defining "periodical publication" to mean a publication appearing at regular intervals. (Houghton v. Payne (1904) 194 U.S. 88, 96-97
(Josh posted at regular intervals)
"Amicus Bear Flag League asserts that nothing in these definitions "exclude[s] Bloggers who publish (i.e. post) fairly regularly." However, we have avoided the term "blog" here because of its rapidly evolving and currently amorphous meaning. It was apparently derived from "we blog," a whimsical deconstruction of "weblog," a compounding of "web log," which originally described a kind of online public diary in which an early web user would provide links to, and commentary on, interesting Web sites he or she had discovered. (See Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (as of May 23, 2006).) The term may now be applied to any Web site sharing some of the characteristics of these early journals. (See ibid.) It is at least arguable that PowerPage and Apple Insider, by virtue of their multiple staff members and other factors, are less properly considered blogs than they are "e-magazines," "ezines," or "webzines." (See Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (as of May 23, 2006) ["A distinguishing characteristic from blogs is that webzines bypass the strict adherence to the reverse-chronological format; the front page is mostly clickable headlines and is laid out either manually on a periodic basis, or automatically based on the story type."].) However, the meanings ultimately to be given these neologisms, as well as their prospects for survival, remain unsettled. O'Grady v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 (Cal.App. Dist.6 05/26/2006)
Cyber cafes are not just your ordinary "retail establishment." fn17 Cybercafes allow people who cannot afford computers (or, often, who cannot afford very high speed internet connections) the freedom of the press. They can post messages to the whole world, and, in theory (if they get enough "hits") can reach more people than read the hard copy of the New York Times every morning. It is thus telling that in defamation law, posting a statement to the internet is considered "publication" --in a very real sense a web site is publication every bit as much as the large presses of a major newspaper. As Judge Kozinski has noted about the freedom of the press inherent in access to the Internet: "For instance, look at Matt Drudge. He sits in his little apartment with a computer and trawls the Internet and overnight becomes a reputable news source -- at least a to-be-feared news source." (Clay Calvert and Robert D. Richards, Defending the First in the Ninth: Judge Alex Kozinski and the Freedoms of Speech and Press (2003) 23 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 259, 276.) With the Internet, the average computer blogger has, in effect, his or her own printing press to reach the world. (Cf. ibid. [Judge Kozinski noting, given the rise of blogging, that "I think the division between press and ordinary speech has all but disappeared"].)
Vo v. City of Garden Grove, 115 Cal.App.4th 425, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 (Cal.App. Dist.4 01/29/2004)
"The architecture of the Internet, as it is right now, is perhaps the most important model of free speech since the founding [of the Republic]. Two hundred years after the framers ratified the Constitution, the Net has taught us what the First Amendment means. . . . The model for speech that the framers embraced was the model of the Internet--distributed, noncentralized, fully free and diverse." (Lessig, supra, at pp. 167, 185.) (Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999) p. 10.) "Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer." (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, supra, 521 U. S. at p. 870.)
In re Stevens, 120 Cal.App.4th 881H, 119 Cal.App.4th 1228, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/29/2004)
In O'Grady v. Superior Court (2006) 2006
Cal.App.LEXIS 802, the application of California's shield law was
further broadened to include the gathering and collection of news by
journalists publishing information through the Internet.
Personally I found the preceding writings very enlightening on the subject. I just wish the mainstream media especially the LA Times who says that Josh is not a journalist would at the very least do some kind of meaningfully research on the topic before condoning the incarceration of a independent journalist. At a minium in the present situation Josh was acting as a freelance journalist because the local media affiliates bought his footage, each affiliate paid $500 to Josh for using his tape on the air, sounds like a real journalist to me.
Next some skeptics are still not convinced they assert that Josh is unlawfully concealing evidence of a crime, why else would the government want his tape?
I take that question as follows; first there was no "crime" the mainstream media is quick to point out that at this protest and in the proximity of Wolf a police officer was hit in the head with an unknown object, he suffered a concussion. We don't downplay this unconscionable act however I must make perfectly clear that that is not the reason josh is in JAIL! The federal government took the formal stance that they are investigating who threw a 'firecracker' at a police vehicle during the protest (court transcript excerpt of record or EOR page 19,69:6-10;110:17-111:3) I will quote at lengths from the appellate documentation available to your right in the column marked "opening brief josh wolf")[right under the GG Bridge pic]
Some people are still not convinced; the mainstream media in several articles by the SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercery News, NY & LA Times have remarked that the government is investigating an arson (not a cop being hit in the head I say again). This is true to a point, it is the Governments stance that the grand jury is investigating an arson and they need josh wolf's tape to prove it. However this assertion is patently silly on its face. According to the only good piece of mainstream journalism on this issue Dan Noyes of ABC7 our local ABC affiliate did a great job debunking this ideological myth surrounding the present debate at hand. If you watch the video here (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=4517281)
you will understand that according to the SF City Police reports there was no arson of their patrol car only a broken taillight. An excerpt for the skeptical;
"The damage report on the squad car in question -- number 1139 -- mentions no burn damage, only a broken tail light." (It should be noted that this assertion is backed up by a visual screen shot of the police report that documented NO FIRE DAMAGE)(watch it)
Anyone can now easily see that this was no legitimate federal intervention attempting to fret out arson damage to a police car. Rather this entire scandal in actuality is nothing more than an arbitrary fishing expedition bent on eviscerating the free press.
I will further point out that the police car allegedly in question is first and foremost property of the city of San Francisco and not in any way connected with the FBI or any other federal agency. The Feds contend that because they give money to the police dept. via govern. grants they do now have jurisdiction over that vehicle. This point is absurd, first of all the government uses no law to support their assertion in this regard; secondly they give money to all sorts of projects irrespective of law enforcement. The mere point that the government gives you a grant does not make you beholden to them. If that were the case the feds could remove federal funding or student aid to a Berkeley student that criticizes the government, or designate who can walk on a city street paid for in part by the federal government. Our schools, our roads and police stations would all cease to be under the dominion and control of local officials. In other words the Tenth Amendment United States Constitution has been completely thwarted in this regard.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people, Amendment X U.S. constitution.
Furthermore even if some rabid right winger still wants to stand on the preposterous government opinion on this matter, it must be taken into consideration that the feds cannot amend the constitution through fiat see Article 5 of the Constitution.
I hope by now I have disavowed you of any false presences that the misinformation mainstream media has driven into your head on this topic. I have frequented several of the "Blogs" (Huffington Post & others) on this issue and peoples comments regarding Josh very on a scale directly linked to the amount of good information they receive, as is the case of people in general. James Madison once remarked regarding the quality of information that people must receive in order for democracy to function.
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Madison letter to WT Barry, 1822
Even Nixon and I agree for once;
"When information which properly belongs to the people is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and eventually incapable of determining their own destiny." (Yale Law Journal Vol. 84 pg. 612, year: 1975) [albiet it may be rhetoric but its ironic]
and Congress "A democratic society requries an informed, intelligent electorate, and the intelligence of the electorate varies as the quantity and quality of its information varies."
But we cant have this form of a democratic society until the mainsteam media does its homework before opening its mouth. Take the Feb. 7, 2007 New York Time article on Wolf, they erroneously stated that the police car in question was damaged by a explosive device. I guess thats the hyped up way of saying Wolf was in the area filming a large protest of people and one of them allegedly throws a firecracker, and somehow a police car gets a broken tailight so we throw a journalist in jail for doing his job and being a tad idealistic. Put it in my context and its an outrage, although in the Times he sounds like a bad guy, especially in a post 9-11 world. "Explosive device"? Guys give me a brake, when your the most respected paper in the world and you screw this up and I get it right, well you suck. And its because of plagiarism, the Times just read what all the old reports on Wolf were saying and rehashed it into a quick little article and its wham bam. Nevertheless it's a sham. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/06blogger.html)
So now that we have effectively and intelligently determined that this entire federal intervention into a state and local matter is a complete farce. What are the local and state officials saying about Wolf, what do they have to say about this dilemma?
1. The State Assembly;
San Francisco State Assemblyman Mark Leno has been an outspoken proponent of the Free Josh Wolf movement for quite sometime. He and State Senator Caroloe Migden introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 31 last year. This resolution passed unanimously in both the assembly and the senate and urged the federal legislature to pass a federal counterpart to the state reporter shield law. [read here] (http://freejosh.pbwiki.com/Assembly%20Joint%20Resolution%2031)
This resolution cited the following as there reasoning for such an act;
A May 2005 poll conducted by the First Amendment Center
and American Journalism Review found that 69 percent of Americans
agree with the statement: "Journalists should be allowed to keep a
news source confidential
Attorneys General of 34 states and the District of Columbia submitted to the United States Supreme Court, "A federal policy that
allows journalists to be imprisoned for engaging in the same conduct
that these State privileges encourage and protect 'buck(s) that clear
policy of virtually all states,' and undermines both the purpose of
the shield laws, and the policy determinations of the State courts
and legislatures that adopted them;"
2. The California State Attorney General;
is chief law officer of California.
At the times relevant to Wolf’s case Bill Lockyer was attorney general of California and he submitted a declaration of his views to both federal courts that were holding hearings regarding federal grand jury investigations of journalistic sources. (http://joshwolf.net/grandjury/NEW/filed%20dec-jlf.pdf)
In his brief Lockleyer stressed his firm belief that the federal government should take into consideration the states legitimate interests in the matter (after all they are allegedly investigated damage done to a city police vehicle)
Lockyer emphasized that not only was a shield law present in the California Statutes (evidence code) in addition California voters overwhelmingly voted to enshrine this prerogative into our state constitution via constitutional amendment art. I, sect. 2. Proposition 5 was approved in a landslide with 75% of the vote.
Furthermore the Attorney General in his brief before the court quoted from the Prop. 5 ballot pamphlet stating;
The free flow of information to the public is one of the fundamental cornerstones assuring freedom in America, and the use of confidential sources is critical to the gathering of news; If our democratic form of government ; of the people, by the people, for the people ; is to survive, citizens must be informed. A free press protects our basic liberties by serving as the watchdogs of our nation. Citizens may agree or disagree with reports in the media, but they have been informed, and the final choice is made by the individual. To jail a journalist because he protected his source is an assault not only on the press but on all Californians as well.
3. Professional Unions;
Some citizens have purported the belief that Josh Wolf is a criminal, simply because he is currently in jail. These people are woefully mistaken. Wolf is not only not a criminal hes not even accused of a crime. Wolf is being held and to date has been held for 169 days in a federal detention facility undergoing what Judge Alsup calls “coercive custody”. He was told by the judge that he can go home as soon as he wants to cooperate. Josh believes in being lawful and at every point during these proceedings he has insisted to following the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Activism has alerted the admirable support of both the Society of Professional Journalist and the National Lawyers Guild. The former late last year presented Wolf with the coveted "Journalist of the Year" award. They have also issued Wolf the largest legal defense endowment in their history; $30,000 dollars. Would a journalist union be so mistaken to award such a hefty sum to the defense of a mere criminal? I think not!
Furthermore the National Lawyers Guild has come full force behind Wolf in an attempt to flank off the oppressive proclivities of the Bush Administration, whom has a direct influence on there proceedings. George Bush appointed the United States Attorney General, the ultimate chief law enforcement official, who in turn appoints the U.S. Attorneys. The U.S. Attorneys office has been behind these shenagins from the beginning. They have erroneously placed an unfair onus of guilt on a man who was simply trying to report on and later through both old and new tech methods disseminate that news in a responsible and professional matter.
4. Local government and law enforcement;
At the end of the day it’s the local government not even the state that takes direction over what will and will not be a priority in law enforcement. The County District Attorneys office ultimately makes the decision of who they may prosecute. In this present case the appropriate authorities to take action would have been the D.A.’s office headed by Pamela Harris. They never took action against Wolf, they never asked him for his tapes or charged him with withholding evidence of a crime (police officer injury or vehicle damage). In fact the only related charge that comes anywhere close to Wolf was initiated against Gabe Myers, a protest participant who was charged placing a styrofoam sign under this patrol car's wheels. (this was the "arson" in question because the sign was billowing smoke even though Myers was never subpoenaed by the grand jury, go figure)
[according to indybay [http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/09/18345277.php]
Later these charges against participant Myers were dropped because The SF District Attorney's Office decided not to pursue the case because of "potential witness testimony and video footage that indicated that police had unsafely sped into a crowd of demonstrators, which Meyers was part of". (also corroborated by the National Lawyers Guild, Indybay and other witnesses that I have personally interviewed)
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors after learning the sheer ridiculous nature of the charges against there constituent voted and passed a local resolution CONDEMING the unlawful and bias persecution of Wolf in this matter. (http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/?page_id=214)
(http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/10/18295876.php)
They stated;
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco oppose these attempts by the federal government and the federal grand jury to intervene in this matter that is within the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco; and, be it further
RESOLVED, The Board of Supervisors urges the federal government and the federal grand jury to respect the protection of journalists afforded under the California Shield Law; and, be it further
RESOLVED, The City and County of San Francisco reinforces the need for a free press as stipulated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and is deeply concerned that this attempt to erode the protections afforded to journalists under state law can not only have a chilling effect, but stands to potentially erode the trust relationship between journalists and their contacts and is essential to journalistic practices.
So in my analytical attempt to examining this issue as comprehensively, albeit not succinctly as possible I assert the firm belief that Josh Wolf does not belong in prison, that a federal shield law is necessary and it be understood that Wolf is a true journalist.
What are people doing about it?
On February 7, 2007 the Free Josh Wolf Coalition of which I am a part of met and organized a press conference on the steps of city hall in San Francisco to mark Wolf's milestone accomplishment. I was personally astonished at the both the volume and gravity of the turnout. Finally the mainstream media took a stronger interest and extended some much overdo coverage. Speakers ranged from the inspiring and charismatic star of the city supervisors office Ross Mirkarimi who called Wolfs incarceration "wrong" to community organizers, journalists and public statements of support from local members of State Assembly and Senate. Later a quaint benefit concert was held at the House of Shields in an effort to raise awareness and much needed funds.
What can you do to help?
We need your help in this dire and pertinent matter. Write a letter or email to your local representatives no matter where you are, urging them to make a federal shield law a priority in this legislative session. There are fed shield bills in both the house and senate pending but our legislators must know that we want these issues to be taken seriously. As they so certainty are.
Call in to your local talk radio affiliate. Regardless of format if you listen to talk radio make your voice heard on the airwaves and plug Josh’s site www.joshwolf.net no E on the end of Wolf.
Let your papers know that this issue means something to you, they will listen and take notice. Often times letters to the editor are published when they pertain to such a pivotal issue of civil liberties and social justice.
Wolf's defense fund after countless and unsucessful attempts at litigation is in need of replishment. Any donations may be made by paypal or check through www.joshwolf.net/blog
Join the Free Josh Wolf Coalition, email andy.blue@yahoo.com and request to be added to our news list.
Check out other stories relating to this subject http://tinyurl.com/39n23x will supply you with everything via Google news.
Recomend me and this site to your friends there are dozens of more talented writers here for you to explore...
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
codymolica's journal
