What is Digg?194 Comments
- empath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+50vlogger is the dumbest word ever
- insurgent, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37Troy, A few points of clarification:
1) I do not have video of the altercation that occurred between a demonstrator and a police officer.
2) My footage has been subpoenaed in regards to an incident regarding alleged damage to a police vehicle.
3) These are essentially local matters and should involve the state government, not Federal.
4) This issue only involves the US Government because I am protected by the California Shield Law.
5) In pursuing this case, the US Government is attempting to trump State's rights and I feel it is part of a larger movement to eviscerate the journalistic protections or shield laws which exist in 33 states including California where I live. - akinder, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33No, it's a story about some idiot videotaping his friends hitting a cop and a cop car and then refusing to turn it over because he thinks he's a journalist.
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26@warox
I'm sorry - I just don't agree. Call me an idiot, a conservative, what have you: but I consider these black bloc kids to be a perfect example of domestic terrorists (right up there with ELF). I'm all for people assembling to peacfully protest, but what happened in the Mission wasn't a protest, it was violent insurgency. I pay Federal taxes to have the govenment protect me (and my family) from this *****.
Go ahead, bury me. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20>>>"Last time i checked federal law trumps state law"
Sorry, but no. Not unless the Federal Government has the authority to make such a law, according to the US Constitution. I refer you to the Tenth Amendment. - orangeRam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I'd also like to point out that Josh's claims really have no legal merit.
A personal videotaped account of a crime does not have first amendment protection, he can't claim he was acting under the veil of journalism if he was recording the vandalism because he arrived at the location with the perpetrators, making him an accessory
He has no fourth amendment protection because he was subpoenaed in front of a grand jury and asked to provide the tape, the tape was not seized without a warrant by the police
Finally there are no clear fourteenth amendment protections because there is no evidence he was denied due process
The only claim with any merit is a fifth amendment evocation because turning over the tape would put him in danger of accessory or conspiracy charges, however if he had not fought like he has, there was probably a good chance that a plea agreement regarding such charges could have been reached after the grand jury returned an indictment - orangeRam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@ upfrontfanatic
The US the most corrupt democracy in the western world? I guess you've never heard of Russia, where freedom of the press isn't a right, its a priviledge that the gov't can grant/deny as it sees fit - darkixion, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Vhat the vuck is a vlogger? VOIP logger? VOIP blogger? Voice blogger? Video blogger? Video logger? Vagrant Flogger? A word invented by someone who's registered vlogger.com and wants to make it more valuable so he's posting it on Digg.com in an attempt to turn it into a new buzz word? I don't doubt the term has been around a while, but it must be killed before people actually start using it in conversation.
- bootaw01, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23A crime was committed. They suspect his video might hold key information. Gotta hand over the tape. Sucks to be you.
Since this Josh guy "considers himself an anarchist", it's just an added bonus that he will probably go to jail or be the snitch ratting out his friends if he does turn over the tape. Haha!
Sure, the US democratic system sucks. No one doubts that. But sadly, it's the best the world's come up with (and successfully applied!) so far. Sure, Socialism is great on paper, but just try to successfully apply that. - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I would like to note that although the government does like to call themselves a democracy we are in fact not a democracy. We're a Republic.
Just a little tidbit I figured I'd mention.
In a democracy everything is done by popular vote. The using of representatives who take the opinion of their districts to make the votes for us is a Republic system. - Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16that page has _alot_ of content (and it's a bit jumbled) - I have no idea where to begin! anybody else know where's a good place to start reading all of these documents? (IE which one should I start with?)
- Crusoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15It's my understanding that shield laws apply towards sources. So if you did a report on govt corruption, and they tried to go after you or your source, you can refuse to name it. It's considered a corner-stone of reporting and govt oversight.
But how does withholding the full video of anarchists vandalizing a cop car apply to the shield law? There is no confidential source involved. I don't think any media outlet could argue successfully that the shield law applied to their videotape of a comission of a crime.
If you had videotaped a rape in progress, and the govt asked for the full unedited tape, would you refuse? If so, why? What is different about this versus the vandalism of a police vehicle? Or is all about political leanings and 'stickin it to the man?"
My taxes paid for those cars, so I want the thugs in jail. ;)
The govt is not after a confidential source, they're not trying to squelch a leak about a illegal govt activity. They're after videotape evidence of a real crime. I think you're on shakey legal ground.
Also, the feds are probably involved for several reasons...
Anarchists who participated in the attack may have crossed state lines. In such cases, the Feds can become involved.
Anarchists organized online, their collusion again crosses state lines.
Anarchists may be members of a group that is considered a domestic terrorist organization ( ALF, etc ).
Each of these possibilities provides enough reason for the feds to be involved. And they don't usually just storm in. The state police usually ask them to help once it becomes apparent that the people involved are not just state residents. - Ozymandias42, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20I doubt that. bootaw. It's not a given fact that the US democratic system sucks, and not everyone thinks that way.
What would you prefer, philosopher kings? Playful despot? Some sort of magical fairy land system where everyone cares about politics and carefully researches their candidates? - troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20From what I understand they have asked for a videotape that he took of some anarchists beating up a cop.... I think its fair enough that he should give them the tape voluntarily.
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Look at us we are attention whores.
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@Otto
Care to test that? walk up to and show a DEA officer in Alaska your state legal pot stash and see what happens. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Basically in his blog, Josh says he won't turn over the tape because he feels they would use the tape as a launch pad to force him to identify any of the activists he may or may not know at the protest. He also conveniently fails to mention on his blog that a police officer was assaulted, a fact pointed out by @quine above with his "cbs5" link.
It's not too far of a stretch to infer that the person(s) who assaulted the cop are quite possibly friends, associates or acquaintances of Josh. It is even more plausible that someone he would identify knows the indetity of those person(s) that committed the assault. We're not talking about kicking the cop in the balls, he received a serious head injury, and what I call an assault here may actually be more like attempted murder.
Now, let's consider the shoe on the other foot. What if the journalist were from the "establishment" media, and the video was of a cop beating some protesters, but the cop happened to be a friend of the journalist, and the journalist then decides to invoke the Shield Law to prevent the tape from being given to investigators? You know in a hot second all you pro-Joshers would be up in arms, inciting diggriots, calling for the journalist to release the tape.
Bottom line, this is not about politically-motivated intimidation, as Josh does a pretty good job of spinning it in a manner to create the story he wants to tell. As any journalist these days would do. This is about a person being assaulted, and investigators seeking evidence to identify the responsible parties, letting justice take its course, and a person clearly misusing their journalistic privelege to obstruct that process. Get ready Josh, I think your contempt charges are just the tip of the iceberg. - g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10When it comes to protecting and standing up for our rights, principles and precedence are very important.
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@warox
I think where we're divided is that I *can* see the governments reasoning here and why it should be tossed to the federal level. Black bloc (Which is who these kids were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc ) acts as a violent fringe group more akin to neo-nazis than peacful protesters. I'll trust the Federal Government, FBI, and pan-state anti-terrorist units to track them down over a SFPD officer making 40k a year, any day.
@forgetfulca
Go ahead and continue with the ad hominem, it just makes you sound stupid. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Not a journalist. No protection under shield law.
End of discussion. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13So let me get this straight. A crime may or may not have been commited. This man has video footage that may very well show whether or not any criminal act occured. He's subpoened for the tape, and he refuses to hand it over. How does he not deserve to be charged again?
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@Nis81
Non-alignment of political beliefs? Hardly, its more-so about a cop (doing his freakin' job, mind you) getting the side of his head bashed in by some punk with a metal pipe. Gotta love San Francisco.
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_190015540.html - rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I've been abroad more than once... (my wife is French)... and the U.S. system is the best. How many hoops and bribes do you have to jump through just to start a small business in France or the UK? Plenty. This is STILL the land of opportunity.
- Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@Keilly
Dude, take a closer look at your source. Singapore is ranked 5th on the chart and I quote:
"Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they are intended to prohibit speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious society"
"Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 140th out of 167 countries in its 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index"
"Some offences can lead to heavy fines or caning..."
"Amnesty International has criticized Singapore for having 'possibly the highest execution rate in the world'". - grok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What were these idiots even protesting?
Oh, let's see... a global summit addressing climate change and poverty in Africa.
Boy, anarchy sure could do a better job of solving those problems.
Between the skateboard-window-smashing and the giant puppets, it's hard to see how anybody can disagree with the Black Bloc agenda. - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Finally someone gets it.
just because you hate Bush and have a cam corder and website doesn't make you a journalist, and just because some of your friends acted like retards and smashed up a car doesn't make them hereos of the revolution.
Grow up and give them the tape already. - quine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11BTW, some real journalists perspective of the event:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/09/BAprotest09.DTL
Yeah, those protesters really look like they're being brutalized. (Note picture of police officer with gaping head wound.) How coincidental - Josh Wolf's name is mentioned yet again... - CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Just give them the damn video. if you're a journalist then why would you have a problem with letting anyone, including the government see the video. Journalists expose and publish what they see they don't have any obligation to cover up any activity.
- portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Wow you'd think this vlogger would have learned from the idots who go around filming their exploits doing stupid things.
A group protests: Great - It is there right just exercise it peacefully like your suppose too.
Someone video tapes it: Ok good.
Person video taping it hopes to catch bad things going on: He does but ahh crap it wasn't by the cops looks like the group forgot to peacefully protest.
Now you have what is called evidence in your hands... Ooops... - darkera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yeah, vlogger sucks.
What about cinema logger or clogger?
They're clogging up the tubes. - plasticmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ok, so let's cut the crap. Would he be willing to hand the tape over to the state? If not, it's a revelation that all this talk about state vs. federal is a red herring. If so, when?
- toomuchpete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Crusoe
Shield Laws also tend to protect unpublished information for one very important reason: if I have an anonymous source and I cannot be forced to name him, but I CAN be forced to turn over all of my unpublished notes, it seems pretty likely that they could get the source that way. It'd be an end-run around the shield laws.
That said, I tend to believe that shield laws should only apply where there's a confidential source to be protected. I don't know if that is or isn't the case in California, but it's pretty clear that the vandals had no expectation of privacy. They committed what they knew (or should've known) to be a crime in broad daylight with videocameras rolling and police officers present.
There's no "source" or "journalistic rights" being protected here. The only thing being protected is this guy's anarchist buddies who committed a crime.
I might be more compelled to believe him (as opposed to the Government) if he had offered them the portion of tape that they can use for the evidence they're claiming they want and they had refused only accepting the entire tape. - AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I haven't read anything on the site as of yet, but I did watch that video of the July 8th protest and maybe you guys can try saying a little more than "that's ***** up" because you all sounded like parrots copying each other with that intriguing argument. Then you yell police brutality because a police man is holding your friend down, stop crying, no one was being brutalized. I'd like to read the site, but I don't know if I even will after watching that video because to me it lost all credibility with the "it's ***** up" comments from everyone because it makes you sound like kids with nothing intelligent to say.
- caseymckinnon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Try starting here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/45138 (he explains some back story and what is currently going on).
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9No, but if they know for a fact that you opened your house to the public, and someone took a video of the event that could prove or disprove the presence of marijuana, should that person not have to show the tape to a jury if subpoened?
- psyduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7People keep bringing up the first amendment... I don't see how this has anything to do with the first amendment in the slightest.
- jackal123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Funny how he hides behind laws of the government which he claims to hate. I don't want to support this loser in any way, but the federal gov's claim to jurisdiction is pretty weak. I agree with people here that he should hand of the tape to the CA police. If we were to take a poll of the entire nation, most of them would probably vote for him to hand over the tape. And isn't that what anarchism believes in...general con census. So, there is only one truth here: they are a bunch of wannabe hardcore anarchists who have no clue what the hell they are doing. I'm willing to bet most of those idiots didn't even know the true meaning of what they were protesting for. *****, what else am I left to believe when their mutual response to a question is "that's ***** up." If he handed over the tape to the police, instead of possibly trying to protect his friends, this would have all been avoided. Please don't try to make him look like a victim here. I wish those idiots were all beaten to ***** for doing pointless acts of violence. Then again, they have their rights guaranteed by the constitution whenever they want something safe to fall back on. What does breaking windows at KFC and Wells Fargo, vandalizing newspaper stands, and assaulting a police officer do for your cause? Conclusion: bunch of ***** without a purpose.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This is a complete non-story, he is attempting to resist a subpoena and he failed, end of story. Saying you're a journalist because you have a camera doesn't make you a revolutionary. There are many more important legal cases then this sad little idiot's.
- sansbury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Nis81:
"Of course under this logic the since the feds get funding from me (income tax) then part of that vehicle is my property. See where things break down?"
Nope. The government isn't a corporation and you aren't a shareholder. So you don't have any legal standing to make claims on the government's behalf. It does however have legal standing to make claims on behalf of The People, a principle rooted in a thousand years or so of English common law. If you want to understand why go look up "legal standing." - donte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Amen. Having an opinion and a web site does not make you a journalist... and if you're trying to claim "freedom of the press" then you're just conceited with a hobby. Not completely a personal dig at this guy, but it seems like every yahoo with an internet connection these days calls themselves a journalist and wants freedom of the press to be some immunity to ever sort of court order in existence. You're not the next Edward R Murrow.
- wxjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Vlogger is the one of the worst english words ever concocted.
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Next time try peaceably assembling and not smashing cop cars.
Jackass - dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I have to agree, what is so important about the tape that the person does not want the government to see it. If he was going to publish it anyway does it matter? I think somebody is trying to get attention.
- justthisguyyano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not only are we a republic, we are a constitutional republic. The rule of law as opposed to the rule of the majority. The constitution grants the federal government specific powers. All powers not granted the federal government are reserved to the states. If a law, federal or state, does not in the view of the Supreme Court meet this standard is is ruled unenforceable.
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Alright, Some really f-ed up ***** went down on the so-called protests of July 8th. Josh Wolf video taped it, perhaps not the assault, but the event in entirety - also having 'questionable' ties to the organizers.
Black bloc is on the Fed watch list... I know it, you know it - they're a messed up organization and deserve the scrutiny. The government is using some shady property rights ***** to get involved... okay, gotchya - but then we did arrest Capone for tax-evasion. Sometimes (and even the courts agree with this) its about the spirit of the law, and not necessarily the letter.
Josh, I highly implore you to spend your free time and journalistic abilities to say document the meth-plight of the SF park population, call attention to the general assistance housing problems in western addition, bayside, or tenderloin - or hell - volunteer your time to all the kids throughout SF that're in some really screwed up places.
Turn over the damn tape, and do something more constructive with your time than defend a gang of ass-hats that like to wear bandannas and burn *****. - DoubtingThomas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@NSResponder :
Which part of the first amendment provides for a person beating a cop over the head with something heavy enough to cause a serious head injury? Not only do you not make sense your use of ad hominem attacks at people do little to bolster your argument, what ever that might be. - DoubtingThomas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I don't see how freedom of the press has anything to do with your sequestering of evidence that may or may not lead to the arrest of people who committed crime. Just because you say there is nothing on the tape doesn't mean you are telling the truth. I find it very hard to align myself behind someone who behaves in a manner similar to yourself and your cohorts. Honestly, right now you appear to be playing the part of a media whore and that is it.
I am no fan of a strong central government and I do believe that our 2-party system has failed. However, behavior such as yours just galvanizes the position of those you oppose while making you appear to be no more than anarchist wacko. - akinder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Seriously, this "blog" revolution ***** is hilarious. You're not a journalist, you're a jackass with a camera and a website.
Keep fighting the man I guess - DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And now my assistant Vlog will help me invent new diabolical english words like "continuized"
"War is the symptom, Capitalism is the disease" is like saying "Boys fighting in school is the symptom, School is the disease"
Seriously the anti-war movement was the biggest mind-**** in history. - psyduck, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16So why didn't you just give them the video?
Neo-journalists are scum. While you protect your precious rights you could have just given the video to the police and allowed wrongdoers to be prosecuted. Obviously you are more than just an impartial observer, but then, what modern journalist isn't? -
Show 51 - 100 of 194 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is