here's the rationale: Wolf and his supporters contend the attempted car arson is a pretense, an end-run around California's strong shield law so the FBI can gather evidence for a San Francisco Police investigation. And Wolf's camp says his case is part of the federal government's national pattern of using grand juries to co-opt journalists as a de facto arm of the law and to chill political dissent.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_4122179 So if it is a point of principle I think the guy has guts to stick to his guns. Not sure still if I agree with him but offland I think I agree with the grand jury less. On 8/2/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > we aren't looking at the value of a police car, it's attempted arson at > best: > > "and an apparent fire or smoke bomb was set under or near a police car. > > Advocates for Wolf dispute that the car sustained damage as a result of > the protest. > > Prosecutors have proposed in court documents that the federal government > has the right to subpoena Wolf's unedited footage in its attempt to > determine if indictable federal offenses occurred, such as the attempted > arson involving a patrol car. > > Although the San Francisco Police Department is a local agency, it > receives funding from the federal government, a fact prosecutors said made > it legitimate issue for a federal grand jury. > > " > > http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/news_in_brief/josh_wolf_jailed_060802.shtml > > > On 8/2/06, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What a police car was vandalized and your thinking it was a misdemeanor? > > How do you figure? > > > > Anything over $500 is a felony in most states. That's not even to > > mention > > the sedition charges that could be brought about from such actions. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:55 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: Blogger or Journalist > > > > > > > > > hmm it isn't that simple. I have only read the one story that Nick > > posted, > > > but the footage is of a demonstration, not simple vandalism. > > Apparently a > > > police car was damaged in the course of the demonstration and they > > want to > > > know if unaired portions of the tape point to who and how. I'd have to > > see > > > the guy's rationale to know what I think of this. > > > > > > If he wants to avoid setting a precedent I might agree with him. > > > This is not > > > a matter of say a murder that we know for sure happened. It's people > > who > > > were exercising their right to free speech and perhaps some of them > > also > > > committed a misdemeanour. If I weigh that out I come down in favor of > > not > > > setting a precedent. > > > > > > As for whether a blogger is a journalist, I think this is > > > something that has > > > not been worked out yet. It may depend on the blog. But regardless of > > the > > > blog, the guy sold some of the film to a local television station so > > in my > > > book that makes him a freelance journalist. > > > > > > > > > On 8/2/06, Robert Munn < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Keep in mind that Judy Miller spent several months in jail over > > > the Plame > > > > leak case. Personally, I don't think journalists should have blanket > > > > > > protection where criminals acts are involved. This blogger's claim > > is a > > > > perfect example. What right of free speech protects him no turning > > over > > > > video evidence of a crime? Nothing. > > > > > > > > On 8/2/06, Nick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > OK, so here is a question, at what point does a person with a blog > > > > become > > > > > a > > > > > journalist? > > > > > > > > > > A blogger was sent to prison today for failing to turn over a > > > video that > > > > > prosecutors claim has footage of a group of people > > > vandalizing a police > > > > > car. > > > > > He is claiming that he is a journalist and has the right to keep > > some > > > > > information private. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://news.com.com/Blogger+jailed+after+defying+court+orders/2100-1028_3-61 > > > > 01187.html > > > > > > > > Two things, first, this may contain footage of a crime that occurred > > in > > > a > > > > public place, even if the guy were a journalist, should it still be > > > > protected? Is this equal to not revealing a source? > > > > > > > > 2nd, Can a person that has a day job, that writes a blog be > > considered a > > > > journalist? What is a journalist? > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > --------------- > > > Robert Munn > > > www.funkymojo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:212346 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
