joshwolf.net— After being excused by the Federal Grand Jury last month, the Assistant US Attorney is bringing civil contempt charges against vlogger Josh Wolf after all.
Jul 13, 2006View in Crawl 4
"I have to agree, citizen journalists, or whatever the hell they want to be called, do not serve much of a purpose beyond muckracking. I'm for freedom of the press, but for the press, not for some twenty year-old who thinks their world view matters."BS. Just because you have more money to publish or have more readers doesn't give you more rights. Personally, I think bloggers should have all the rights of any journalist. But then, I also believe there's nothing that gives journalists immunity to laws that the rest of us have to obey.
"The First Amendment has no bearing or jurisdiction in the case of someone refusing to provide evidence "Yes it does, and so do the fourth and fifth amendments. There's a reason why we don't issue a General Warrant like the kings of England did.-jcr
f**king retarded anarchists...they are the 70s/80s hippies...just except getting high all the time and trying to make peace they try and wage war and overturn governments...They will never amount anything more than a minority...because the general populus doesn't think that way. They don't care to stand up to the government because it works enough for them. Nothing is f**king perfect in this world...especial not governments...
I think too many people are acting under the assumption that to be a journalist, one must be employed by a newspaper or similar venture. I'm not saying one way or the other that Wolfe is or isn't a journalist, but I think we really need to analyze this closer.My neighbor is 30 year veteran reporter for the Washington Post and such, I think we'd all consider him a journalist. He works for a newspaper, earns a salary, is published multiple times weekly. Now, what if he worked for the local paper where the circulation is only a few hundred people (we live an hour outside of DC). I think we'd all still say his a journalist. Now take it a step further. In college, I was a reporter and later editor for the school newspaper. My first two years I worked pro bono, however my third and fourth year I began earning a small salary due to the amount of time I reported on local events and my skill. So was I a journalist during my tenure? What about when I wasn't being paid? I can assure you that even though I was new to the game and not being paid my first two year, I still worked under the journalist code, conducted upwards of a 100 interviews/quote blurbs, and reported on God knows how many events, concerts, protests, and the such. Heck, during my second year, I was on the team of reporters who revealed a 55 year old member of the school's advisory board had not only stolen close to $150,000 from the student government, but who had also cast inappropriate sexual advances on countless college students. When the dust settled, he was not only fired, but tried and convicted of rape due to three different woman coming out and having the courage to tell their story due to our discovery and reports. And this is all while I was not being paid and doing all my interviews, writing, and sifting through documents on the side of school and work. And yet I never felt more like a journalist in my life. The local "established" newspaper of my town had completely ignored this story and it took a group of individuals who felt the story needed to be told, were close to it, and who worked to make sure the truth was finally discovered.So how are bloggers any different? Remember, I'm not saying that Wolf in particular is a journalist, but that simply because he's a blogger or vlogger doesn't mean he can't be an amateur journalist as well. Bloggers are unpaid, at times follow and report closely on stories that they feel other, more "established" outlets are ignoring or misrepresenting or even simply on stories that they are highly interested in and want to show their view on. Many of our founding fathers did the same in the form of leaflets and pamphlet as they felt the were not accurately portraying the British or their policies.Again, I'm not saying Wolf is a journalist, since even journalists can be forced to turn over incriminating material or go to jail for contempt of court. (which is what Wolf could face if he doesn't turn over the video). But remember that journalism can come in many forms, from paid reporters at CNN and The New York Times all the way down to the pamphlet I print in my basement and hand out on the street corner or the blog I publish on the Internet in my spare time.
"Does that make me a chef? Does that make my house a restaurant? No. It means I like to cook. It means I have a hobby. And even when I make something that people enjoy eating, it doesn't make me a professional cook."1) That's not a legal distinction. That's an example of the "I know one when I see it" logic that we're not going to use because it does not a legal distinction make.2) There's no amendment in the bill of rights for cooking.3) The first amendment guarantees freedom of press and speech. It never said that applied only to sanctioned reporters. In the 1700s, the "blogger" of the day was some guy with a contraband printing press turning out leaflets, and that is *exactly* what they wanted to protect. It specifically says *freedom of the press* without limiting that to people who do it for a living. Doesn't matter if it's a hobby or not, we all enjoy the same freedoms. I refer you to my previous argument involving the Equal Protection clause.In other words, freedoms aren't for a priveliged class. They're for everone.
Press or not press, it doesn't matter. If Wolf Blitzer or Brit Hume or Dan Rather had this same tape, they'd be legally required to hand it over. Shield laws don't apply to protecting your confidential source WHEN YOU'RE THE SOURCE.
I'm not sure if everyone here fully understands the issue. This case has several layers to it.First, the vlogger is trying to project the case as a violation of his constitutional rights. He is half right. The heart of the matter is that California has laws to protect journalists from such subpoenas from courts, but the federal government asserts that it paid for the damaged cruiser in a roundabout way -- namely, through funds given to the state -- so it has a right to circumvent the state's law and levy its own subpoena. So, it turns out that this is a case of states' constitutional rights vs. the federal government's rights, not this guy's 4th amendment rights.This guy is pursuing the case so adamantly because he believes it will help his political cause; in reality, it's effecting a natural balancing of issues that need to be addressed in our current government.And on a personal note, I think this guy is a dips**t. If it were just a cruiser that got harmed, I'd be all for this dude. But if he has a videotape of someone, police officer or not, getting his skull cracked, he would be wise to quietly turn over a 15-second portion of the tape showing the perpetrators. He's being selfish and trite by letting his blinding hate for the government cloud his sense of moral judgment.
mrunderbridgeJul 13, 2006
"I have to agree, citizen journalists, or whatever the hell they want to be called, do not serve much of a purpose beyond muckracking. I'm for freedom of the press, but for the press, not for some twenty year-old who thinks their world view matters."BS. Just because you have more money to publish or have more readers doesn't give you more rights. Personally, I think bloggers should have all the rights of any journalist. But then, I also believe there's nothing that gives journalists immunity to laws that the rest of us have to obey.
nsresponderJul 13, 2006
"The First Amendment has no bearing or jurisdiction in the case of someone refusing to provide evidence "Yes it does, and so do the fourth and fifth amendments. There's a reason why we don't issue a General Warrant like the kings of England did.-jcr
rapeandruinJul 14, 2006
f**king retarded anarchists...they are the 70s/80s hippies...just except getting high all the time and trying to make peace they try and wage war and overturn governments...They will never amount anything more than a minority...because the general populus doesn't think that way. They don't care to stand up to the government because it works enough for them. Nothing is f**king perfect in this world...especial not governments...
bbearJul 14, 2006
Vandalizing a police car has nothing to do with free speech.
goobJul 14, 2006
I think too many people are acting under the assumption that to be a journalist, one must be employed by a newspaper or similar venture. I'm not saying one way or the other that Wolfe is or isn't a journalist, but I think we really need to analyze this closer.My neighbor is 30 year veteran reporter for the Washington Post and such, I think we'd all consider him a journalist. He works for a newspaper, earns a salary, is published multiple times weekly. Now, what if he worked for the local paper where the circulation is only a few hundred people (we live an hour outside of DC). I think we'd all still say his a journalist. Now take it a step further. In college, I was a reporter and later editor for the school newspaper. My first two years I worked pro bono, however my third and fourth year I began earning a small salary due to the amount of time I reported on local events and my skill. So was I a journalist during my tenure? What about when I wasn't being paid? I can assure you that even though I was new to the game and not being paid my first two year, I still worked under the journalist code, conducted upwards of a 100 interviews/quote blurbs, and reported on God knows how many events, concerts, protests, and the such. Heck, during my second year, I was on the team of reporters who revealed a 55 year old member of the school's advisory board had not only stolen close to $150,000 from the student government, but who had also cast inappropriate sexual advances on countless college students. When the dust settled, he was not only fired, but tried and convicted of rape due to three different woman coming out and having the courage to tell their story due to our discovery and reports. And this is all while I was not being paid and doing all my interviews, writing, and sifting through documents on the side of school and work. And yet I never felt more like a journalist in my life. The local "established" newspaper of my town had completely ignored this story and it took a group of individuals who felt the story needed to be told, were close to it, and who worked to make sure the truth was finally discovered.So how are bloggers any different? Remember, I'm not saying that Wolf in particular is a journalist, but that simply because he's a blogger or vlogger doesn't mean he can't be an amateur journalist as well. Bloggers are unpaid, at times follow and report closely on stories that they feel other, more "established" outlets are ignoring or misrepresenting or even simply on stories that they are highly interested in and want to show their view on. Many of our founding fathers did the same in the form of leaflets and pamphlet as they felt the were not accurately portraying the British or their policies.Again, I'm not saying Wolf is a journalist, since even journalists can be forced to turn over incriminating material or go to jail for contempt of court. (which is what Wolf could face if he doesn't turn over the video). But remember that journalism can come in many forms, from paid reporters at CNN and The New York Times all the way down to the pamphlet I print in my basement and hand out on the street corner or the blog I publish on the Internet in my spare time.
mrunderbridgeJul 14, 2006
"Does that make me a chef? Does that make my house a restaurant? No. It means I like to cook. It means I have a hobby. And even when I make something that people enjoy eating, it doesn't make me a professional cook."1) That's not a legal distinction. That's an example of the "I know one when I see it" logic that we're not going to use because it does not a legal distinction make.2) There's no amendment in the bill of rights for cooking.3) The first amendment guarantees freedom of press and speech. It never said that applied only to sanctioned reporters. In the 1700s, the "blogger" of the day was some guy with a contraband printing press turning out leaflets, and that is *exactly* what they wanted to protect. It specifically says *freedom of the press* without limiting that to people who do it for a living. Doesn't matter if it's a hobby or not, we all enjoy the same freedoms. I refer you to my previous argument involving the Equal Protection clause.In other words, freedoms aren't for a priveliged class. They're for everone.
syberghostJul 14, 2006
Press or not press, it doesn't matter. If Wolf Blitzer or Brit Hume or Dan Rather had this same tape, they'd be legally required to hand it over. Shield laws don't apply to protecting your confidential source WHEN YOU'RE THE SOURCE.
pexorJul 14, 2006
I'm not sure if everyone here fully understands the issue. This case has several layers to it.First, the vlogger is trying to project the case as a violation of his constitutional rights. He is half right. The heart of the matter is that California has laws to protect journalists from such subpoenas from courts, but the federal government asserts that it paid for the damaged cruiser in a roundabout way -- namely, through funds given to the state -- so it has a right to circumvent the state's law and levy its own subpoena. So, it turns out that this is a case of states' constitutional rights vs. the federal government's rights, not this guy's 4th amendment rights.This guy is pursuing the case so adamantly because he believes it will help his political cause; in reality, it's effecting a natural balancing of issues that need to be addressed in our current government.And on a personal note, I think this guy is a dips**t. If it were just a cruiser that got harmed, I'd be all for this dude. But if he has a videotape of someone, police officer or not, getting his skull cracked, he would be wise to quietly turn over a 15-second portion of the tape showing the perpetrators. He's being selfish and trite by letting his blinding hate for the government cloud his sense of moral judgment.
chasingcactiAug 28, 2006
good luck to josh!