What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
194 Comments
- Liam76, on 10/12/2007, -21/+75Correct me if I am wrong, but he admitted to participating in protests like this before?
If this is the case doesn't he lose his "journalistic rights" to videos he takes at events like this? I mean if you are part of the movement or cause can you really wake up one day and decide you are just going to watch and then have everything you do be protected?
And if so where do you draw the line?
Could I go to an event break laws with the protestors and then pick up a camera and cry freedom of the press when the cops told me to leave?
Even if you believe he can be part of a protest one day and a journalist covering it the next do journalists have the right to deny a courts access to evidence of felonies? I mean this isn't like he is being forced to turn over the name of a whistle blower, or give away a source he should be trying to protect. He *allegedly* has video of people trying to set cars on fire, does he have the right to try and keep people like that from getting justice? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -34/+72One of the cops has a fractured skull because of this, and he doesn't reveal the videotape because he was going to post it on his blog?
Maybe his supposed "Freedom of the Press" is being infringed (I would argue he isn't a journalist to begin with), but regardless, I feel very bad for those cops involved in that ordeal and hope they get their justice. - DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41Much more background here
http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-04-19/news/news.html - sumrandommember, on 10/12/2007, -18/+54There is such a thing as *freelance* journalism. And he did sell a portion of the video to a media outlet. That pretty much makes him a journalist IMHO.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+50I may not know the legal intricacies involved but I think the kid is a tool for not giving up a tape that clearly shows a crime taking place. "But I'm a reporter and don't have to give people up even when they are bashing in skulls!" Um, yes you do.
- baduncadonk, on 10/12/2007, -19/+53The Society of Professional Journalists named Josh Wolf Northern California's 2006 Journalist of the Year: http://www.spj.org.
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33This has nothing to do with Pelosi.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35Yeah, let's blame Pelosi for the journalists incarcerated before the democrats took power in congress. That sounds like a good idea.
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -26/+48Yeah digg me down but you can't dispute me.
The guy video taped some of his anarchist buddies vandalizing a cop car, which tax payers paid for,
He decides he doesn't want turn over evidence so he uses the fact that he has a video blog that he puts some ***** videos on to pretend he is a journalist.
Hint:Next time you want to break *****, don't video tape it. - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30Oh come on, he runs a blog called "The Revolution will be Televised," and you insist that he's a journalist. It's irrelevant, if a journalist has his videotape subpoenaed, he SHOULD provide a COPY to the court. No one said he couldn't do whatever he wants with the tape, but two cops were attacked and one had a fractured skull, and that tape is evidence.
Oh, but he wanted it to post it on his blog, and thought this would hurt his cause... Maybe you shouldn't try to be a journalist and an advocate as the same time? - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28Okay lets put this another way so the slow kids will get it.
Say I was in a gang and I had a video blog called mygangrules.com.
I follow my gang around and video tape may gangs crimes just so I can put it up for the world to see.
My gang happens to come across your family and brutally beats and violates them.
Does this make me a journalist or a thug with a camera?
Does this give me a right not to hand over evidence?
The only reason you guys are standing behind this ***** is because a cop got his skull cracked. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28Correction: Some kid with a camera and a blog takes a video of a demonstration. Now does this make him a journalist? Can a blogger be considered a journalist? That's the question the courts needed to answer before imprisoning Wolf.
- Mudb0y, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28Pelosi didn't want the bigger jet, it was the DoD. Hastert had a jet too. The only reason Pelosi's is bigger is they didn't want to stop to refuel for trips between CA and DC... This is a 9/11 precaution, this kinda thing is just negative spin...
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -12/+29Let me know when you have a real journalist behind bars instead of some kid pretending to be a journalist and witholding video evidence.
This isn't about protecting sources who are whistleblowers, this is about protecting protesters from prosecution after things got out of hand. - BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -19/+33Oh and if you want to keep defending the police then read this.
"Wolf has repeatedly stated under oath that his unpublished material does not contain footage of any of the alleged crimes committed. In a show of good faith, Wolf has offered to let the judge review his tape.
The Honorable Judge William Alsop refused. "
Tell me, why would he refuse? Shouldn't this be exactly what the government wants? But they refused to look at it? He offered to show them the very thing he is being wrongly jailed for, and they refuse to look at it?
Come the ***** on. Explain that. - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -31/+44Josh Wolf is nothing but an attention whore, and wants to bring attention to his anarchist cause.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"Nis81, why would it really make a difference whether he's a journalist? All Americans are protected by the first amendment, not just journalists."
You are correct that all Americans (and even non-citizens on American soil) are protected by the First Amendment. However, this isn't a free speech issue. Wolf has video evidence of a crime. The courts subpoenaed the video but Wolf refused to produce it on the grounds that he is a journalist and he's protecting his sources by withholding the video. Now the question is does being a blogger constitute being a journalist? Instead of asking that question and coming up with an answer the courts treated Wolf as a non-journalist who is in contempt of court.
The crux of the issue is that Wolf's journalist status is in question; if he can be considered a journalist then the courts are jailing him despite his journalistic right to protect his sources. If Wolf isn't a journalist, because presumably having a blog isn't enough to constitute journalism, then he really is just an everyday citizen who isn't complying with the will of the court.
There's a few other issues such as whether the federal government even has the right to be involved, but the main issue is that Wolf is imprisoned while his journalistic status, and hence his journalistic protection, is in question. - vvelox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16This not about journalism at all. It is about some jerk refusing to hand over video footage of a crime in progress.
- trenchcoat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14And remember kids, he's withholding evidence, not protecting a source.
- missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Nis81, why would it really make a difference whether he's a journalist? All Americans are protected by the first amendment, not just journalists.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20He is not a properly licensed and bonded journalist, registered with the Department of Truth. He should be executed for exercising his rights without permission.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@BGFeltenink
Do you know how the courts work? The judge is NOT the only person allowed to see evidence. The defense and the prosecution MUST have access to it. The judge can only determine if evidence is NOT admisable to the trial based on the legality of obtaining it. It's up to the defense and prosecution to exploit the evidence and the jury to determine guilt or innocence based off that evidence. - Ystig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"PRNewswire" link dugg down for being a press release, not a news story. SFWeekly story dugg up for being a news story, not a press release. Dugg thusly not because mainstream newsmedia sources are inherently trustworthy while press releases aren't, but because PRNewswire press releases are inherently deceptive (trying to veil inherent bias behind a journalistic facade) while at least major news sources, or even blogs, can be interpreted in terms of their particular political or regional biases in order to extract fact from spin.
- TimoP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Every time I see a title like that, I wonder if there really are people who think that by pressing the little digg button they're actually making a difference or something.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13People have a right to peaceful protest, not a right to destroy private property. This guy was filming destruction caused by a group that he is a member of (or, at least, a supporter of, according to his own words); he wasn't making a documentary. I was outraged when I heard the story, then I saw the actual crime he was jailed for.
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22Not this kid again.
Josh Wolf is nothing other than a no-talent, Mission-trashing, Black-bloc wannabe, ass-clown. And before the digg community gets all "up in arms" about Bush and free speech -- do some research first to learn WHY he was really in jail to begin with.
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_190015540.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/09/BAprotest09.DTL
[Sorry for the misplace, again - having issues today] - MemeWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -16/+25@ sonofdy
One does not need to have an education in journalism to be a journalist. It helps if you want to make a career out of journalism, but it isn't necessary. Josh is an independent journalist. Being independent doesn't carry much weight in the world of professional journalism these days; but most professional journalists work for gigantic corporations who place their own desires above any obligation to serve the public discourse. One could argue that independent journalists who aren't beholden to larger entities with their own political agenda have in some cases more integrity than professional journalists who are.
Public discourse and an informed public are necessary part of a vital democracy. A free press is necessary part of having a public discourse and informed populace. Independent news sources such as blogs are taking a larger role in the public discourse because they fulfill something that has been absent from major media sources for some time now in that they are free to discuss controversial matters without oversight from corporate gatekeepers who would rather the public stay uninformed on any topic that might threaten their profits. We may not always agree with certain bloggers or trends within the blogosphere, but I recognize that they serve a valuable public service.
Independent journalists need to be afforded the same protections as professional journalists do irregardless of their education or employment history. Many professional journalists would not display the kind of courage that Josh has shown. And in terms of integrity Josh is a journalist of the highest order. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"Correct me if I am wrong, but he admitted to participating in protests like this before?
If this is the case doesn't he lose his "journalistic rights" to videos he takes at events like this? I mean if you are part of the movement or cause can you really wake up one day and decide you are just going to watch and then have everything you do be protected?"
There is no such thing as "journalistic rights." To have such rights, journalists would have to be "certified" journalists. Since the idea is to separate journalism and state control as much as possible, there is no prerequisite to being a "journalist." He could be the head of this organization, and he would still be protected by the same rights as any person carrying a camera in a public space.
That said, it is the law that you must give up evidence if you're subpoena'd, period. If he wants to get out of jail, he needs a better attorney. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12What the heck?
He fought a subpoena to turn over more of his video tape.
He's not protecting a story, he's fighting to keep the story from being viewed. except through his own editing. - scametah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9He's staying in jail to prolong his 15 minutes.
Kid is a scumbag. Call him a journalist if you want, but what he's doing has nothing to do with journalism.
Protecting a confidential source is one thing, withholding evidence is totally different. There's no breach of confidence, and no legal reason he should not turn over the evidence, regardless of his political views.
By some people's logic apparently it's OK for you to videotape a burglary or assault, broadcast the fact you have it, and then refuse to give it to the authorities. Well, sorry, its not. Hiding behind supposedly being a journalist is a disgrace, and the fact that some group of professional journalists have honored this douchebag instead of disassociating with him is exactly why we shouldn't trust journalists, and instead try to figure whether they belong above or below lawyers on the totem pole of *****. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19So let me get this strait. This guy has evidence for a court case, it was properly subpoenaed, and he's using freedom of the press to hide the culprits? Why is this guy being lauded as some kind of martyr? He SHOULD be in jail. He wasn't told he didn't have the right to show it, he wasn't told he didn't have the right to own it. His rights were not oppressed.
- ideasware, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I am all set to support thus guy... I generally agree with all the rhetoric on his blog about loss of free speech and privacy, Big Brother, erosion of the Constitution, all kinds of conspiracy stuff... I'm there.
But I find it odd and annoying that neither Josh nor his suppporters say anything about the damn case. Why does the Justice Dept want his footage? What "probable cause" or other rationale do they have? It's probably lame -- he's probably right -- but why the hell won't some dickwad that supports him just state the facts so we can all evaluate the moral balance? Why stick to pure fear-mongering? - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25This guy is an ass. If he has information that can help convict people for assaulting police officers,he should go to jail. I don't care that he's an advocate claiming to be a journalist (while running a blog entitled "The Revolution will be Televised"), because in that case every scumbag could start a blog and claim to be a member of the press.
Even if he was a member of the press, he is not exempt from the law. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Josh Wolf can leave prision whenever he chooses. He is in jail as a result of his failure to comply with a court ordered subpoena of evidence in his possession. Journalist or not, he's been issued a subpoena. Failure to comply with that, journalist or not, would put any one of us in jail as well.
Journalism, in this case, is not a defense to withold evidence. Wolff's case was heard by a judge and denied. The appeal was heard and was also denied. Wolff's only recourse is the SCOTUS and I'm not aware if his counsel has petitioned the court to hear his case. However, it's likely the SCOTUS won't hear it as the lower courts have already ruled on these matters in similar cases.
Wolff must hand over the tape or else he will remain in jail. It is his choice. - randf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12buried--another media whore's lame-ass attempt to use digg to popularize a non-story. the jackass is in jail where he belongs.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15I guess any criminal now can use journalistic integrity when refusing to hand over evidence in court... Anyone can be a blogger right?
- FlindianaJones, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13So what you're saying munen123 is, that if I have a journalist...I mean blogger friend of mine video tape me beating your skull in say, I should be allowed to get away with it? Sweet! I'll get right on that. [/Sarcasm]
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -54/+61This guy is not journalist. He is just a kid with a camera who is covering up a crime. Don't buy the hype.
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I hardly consider trying to set a cop car on fire, or bashing a police officer in the back of the head with a metal pipe to be adolescent in nature and I'm pretty sure they aren't misdemeanors. But hey, thats just me.
- toolow, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I will dig whatever you tell me to dig.
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You can always tell someone is a full of crap shameless self promoter when they talk in sweeping generalizations and cliches. Using the silly cliche "police state" immediate makes someone full of it. The law works with details but he doesn't want to talk about those. He wants to be some kind of martyr so he'll be able to sucker people into buying his future book.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@"If this is the case doesn't he lose his "journalistic rights" to videos he takes at events like this?"
To be fair, Benjamin Franklin didn't loose his rights to journalism when he actively fought against the British. These are inherited rights and even though it may be against the current law it doesn't make it right.
He at least is holding true to his morals and not caving in like most of us would faced with the same situation. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6To be fair, he said that it does not show a crime being committed. His take seems to be that they don't want it to find crimes on it, but to figure out who the protesters were so they can watch them or whatever it is that he thinks they do.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13screw him. as long as i have my ipod and hamburgers what the ***** do i care.
- soyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12please, no more articles that tell us to digg something as an expression of our support/disgust/anger/whatever. even though i agree that this is a travesty, please just link to the article, allow people to form their own opinions, and discuss it in the message boards.
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Achalemoipas
I don't blame your confusion. Its weird that he doesn't make any mention of his affiliations or the events at hand, eh? These Black-bloc/indybay/anarchist kids are a deceptive bunch. These people seriously have an agenda. I'm not one to throw around the term lightly, but groups like this are perfect examples of domestic terrorists. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Bloc or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front - Namrok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8He sticks to fear mongering because he's wrong. The footage they want contains people burning a police car, and an officer being seriously injured by rioters. It is not covered as "protecting your sources" nor is it covered under shield laws. They just want to get away with assaulting an officer by destroying/concealing evidence.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7So if keeping a journal qualifies you as a journalist, I imagine there are many other "journalists" who have been in U.S. prisons for much longer than this kid.
- LiveFastDieOld, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9You know who else is a journalist who's been unjustly persecuted? Joe Francis, the "Girls Gone Wild" guy -- certainly one of the finest journalists this world has ever seen. And yet those bastards in the legal system give him no credit for his eye-popping exposes or his undercover(s) exclusives.
Don't you people understand? He should be allowed to bang all the 16-year-olds he wants. It's freedom of the press!!!!! - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13@badunkodunk
Yeah, and they're a bunch of tools apparently. And c'mon, stop trying to generate hype for a stupid press release that you posted digg with a stupid, deceptive description. He is not protecting his sources. He is protecting a video that he wants to use to further his political cause, and the fact that people supporting his cause beat some cops make his cause look a little silly. -
Show 51 - 100 of 194 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is