A slippery slope is from the angle of whose looking. There is no absolute right that any social group has: government prosecutors, journalists, citizen, et. al. The decision is judged by the situation based on human rights and values.
-- Enric --- In [email protected], "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While I do find the conversation about journalism interesting I find > the most important point to be something entirely different. > > What rights do we have to be secure in our property... particularly > our videos and other intellectual property. > > If the police can sopena Josh's video footage anytime they like like > he was a survelience camera... then why not his computer... We could > just go around and make a grand jury on "domestic terrorism"... and > make anyone we think who we've suspected has talked to the ELF > (environmental liberation front) or any group... and send them a > sopoena for all their video, their computers, and any audio > recordings... basically we can turn any individual in the U.S. into > a tool of survielence for the CIA, FBI or any other government > group.... and without due process. > > The governement was not looking for info specific to one crime, they > wanted Josh's footage so they could identify people in it... basic > survielence. > > Josh even offered to let them review the tapes in the presence of the > court... but they obviously wanted his footage for purposes unrelated. > > Furthermore... on a state level Josh Wolf would have been protected by > shield laws... the fact that this was a federal grand jury trumped his > rights under the state. > > Basically it's a big issue of due process. > > I'm not even going to say wether Josh was right or wrong... but I both > respect him and am tremendously grateful to him that he's driving the > discussion and pressing the point. > > The bottom line is this... there has been plenty of understanding of > due process when it comes to physical property. Our right to be secure > in our physical property... say a diary... our mail. > > But as we move into intellectual property it gets stickier and > stickier. Phone tapping was one thing... but now that our means of > communication also become self archiving like email, video, photos, > and audio... we have very important NEW considerations because now the > governent can sopoena not just records of meta information like who > you called... but increasingly records of what was said... in email, > audio recordings, video footage, photos. > > The funny thing is more of this information is public on our blogs, > video and photosharing sites, twiter... and all over. This alone > gives the institutions of law enforcement and intelligence tremendous > new powers and tools... I'm not so convinced... well... I'm downright > opposed to the idea that they also need new liberties and are cutting > through the "red tape" of due process to get at our personal data. > > In a world where the last two years of communications and even IM > transcripts are in my gmail account... I'm VERY VERY concerned about > how easy legislation is making it to dig into my personal information > and for what reason. > > To me what josh wolf's case screams is we the citizens cannot be > turned into survielence tools of the state. There has to be a much > more well define and rigorous due process of how they can gain access > to our private communications histories and for what reasons. > > If the police are given a warrant for your home it's given for a > specific purpose... i.e. they can't be given a warrant to search for a > gun and confiscate your entire computer... this is essentially what > they did to josh wolf... they claimed they wanted his footage to look > for information specifically related to a crime... he testified as to > the content of that footage and he offered to let them review it in > the presence of the court for said content. In refusing to comply they > gave away their true and unspecified intentions. > > It's an extremely slippery slope. > > Peace, > > -Mike > mmeiser.com/blog > > On 4/5/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is an interesting area of discussion. While Josh says that the > > idea of objectivity in journalism is the problem. He also states his > > supreme interest is in the truth. I haven't seen these highly > > abstract ideas thoroughly explained which leads people to different > > conclusions on what Josh and others mean. > > > > I don't see journalism fulfilling objectivity -- having a faulty claim > > to that idea. Objectivity requires peer review of source data. The > > information gathered from news organizations is held mostly in secrecy > > in the businesses which guarantees a significant lack of objectivity, > > since the data can't be independently evaluated. There is a problem > > of protecting sources -- but that can to a large extent be solved by > > disguising names. It's more the need of news businesses to scoop each > > other gain a edge by holding information secretive that's the problem. > > > > The problem is not objectivity in itself, but not adequately > > fulfilling it's requirements. The danger I fear is a false > > objectivity is attacked and thrown out, rather than corrected to offer > > transparent information that can corrected toward objectivity. > > > > -- Enric > > Cirne > > http://cirne.com > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > > Interesting article > > > > > > http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294;_ylt=AjL7tlWL.cedgomrWP1 > > > qsXOs0NUE > > > > > > SAN FRANCISCO -- Whether he is a journalist or not, as many debate, > > > Josh Wolf believed strongly enough in the journalistic principle of > > > protecting his sources that he was willing to spend seven and a half > > > months in a federal prison being faithful to it. > > > > > > Tuesday afternoon, he walked out of the Dublin Federal Correctional > > > Institution in California a free man. > > > > > > Wolf was in prison for refusing to hand over video he shot during a > > > protest in San Francisco in 2005. In a deal brokered between his > > > lawyers and federal prosecutors, Wolf posted the uncut video of the > > > protest on his site, JoshWolf.net, gave prosecutors a copy, told them > > > he had not witnessed any crimes and was released. > > > > > > In exchange, prosecutors acceded to Wolf's key contention: that he > > > not be made to appear before the grand jury and identify those on his > > > videotape. > > > > > > > > > "Journalists absolutely have to remain independent of law > > > enforcement,'' Wolf told reporters outside the gates of the > > > prison. "Otherwise, people will never trust journalists.'' > > > > > > > > > Just as Wolf became a poster boy for the debate of whether bloggers > > > are actually journalists and deserving the same legal protections, > > > his status as an Internet icon may get another boost as likely the > > > first federal prison inmate to be released for posting a video to his > > > website. > > > > > > Wolf, who calls himself and activist and anarchist on another one of > > > his sites, "The Revolution Will Be Televised," filmed a July 2005 San > > > Francisco protest against the World Trade Organization which > > > turned violent. A police officer suffered a fractured skull and there > > > were allegations of attempted arson. > > > > > > > > > Wolf provided some of the footage to local television stations, but > > > refused to give the raw outtakes to a grand jury. > > > > > > > > > The standoff led to Wolf being jailed and sparked a heated debate > > > about whether an activist blogger deserved the same protections as a > > > professional journalist. > > > > > > > > > I spoke to Wolf by telephone while he was still in prison a few weeks > > > ago and asked him if his advocacy made him selective in what he > > > videotaped at the protest. Would he turn off the camera to protect > > > his friends? A partial transcript of our conversation follows (Listen > > > to the full interview). > > > > > > > > > Kevin Sites: If there had been a situation where you saw a protestor > > > beating up a police officer, or you saw them committing arson, would > > > you have shot that? > > > > > > > > > Josh Wolf: I wasn't there to shoot that. > > > > > > > > > Kevin Sites: No, but would you have shot that? > > > > > > > > > Josh Wolf: That's a question I would have made in that moment... > > > > > > > > > Kevin Sites: Well, that's what I want to ask you. If I asked you to > > > take sides, if I asked you to take a side of journalism or activism, > > > you know, which side are you taking here? Because you're asking for > > > the protection of journalism yet you're also seeking to be an > > > activist. > > > > > > "My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. That is my > > > number one accountability." > > > Josh Wolf > > > > > > > > > Josh Wolf: Would you not say that Thomas Paine was an activist for > > > the Declaration of - or the independence of America and also... > > > > > > > > > Kevin Sites: But I would say that he would not be claiming to be > > > journalist, he would be claiming to be an activist. That's all I'm > > > asking you to do, is take sides. Are you claiming to be an activist > > > or a journalist? > > > > > > Josh Wolf: I don't. I see that advocacy has a firm role within the > > > realm of journalism. > > > > > > Kevin Sites: Right, but as an advocate, you have to be willing to > > > allow yourself to be jailed and expect the consequences of your > > > actions. As a journalist, you're asking for certain protections, you > > > know, from those consequences. That's why I'm asking you, you know, > > > which side do you want to step on at this point. > > > > > > Josh Wolf: My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. > > > That is my number one accountability. > > > > > > Kevin Sites: But that truth is through, as you said, a prism of your > > > own political convictions. > > > > > > Josh Wolf: The truth is biased by everyone's convictions, whether > > > it's a corporate conviction of your employer, your own personal > > > convictions that are left politically based from mainstream press > > > perspective, or a more biased perspective [because of] which you > > > won't be as open about as a journalist who does not put forward an > > > impression that they are trying to be objective. If you watch the > > > videotape, you'll see there are many things that make the protestors > > > look bad and there are things that make the cops look bad. It is > > > essentially a balanced report of what I saw. It's a bird's eye view. > > > > > > Debra Saunders, a conservative columnist for the San Francisco > > > Chronicle, applauds Wolf's dedication, but doesn't believe he should > > > be called a journalist. > > > > > > "I think that you can be a blogger and be a journalist," Saunders > > > tells me from her office at the Chronicle. "There are people who fit > > > that [description], but when you're an activist cavorting with the > > > people you're chronicling, then you are not a journalist." > > > > > > Her own newspaper disagrees with that assessment and has supported > > > Wolf on the Chronicle's opinion pages. > > > > > > "The fact that Josh Wolf has strong political views does not > > > disqualify him from being a journalist any more than the fact that I > > > am an editorial page editor and have opinions disqualifies me from > > > being a journalist," says John Diaz of the Chronicle. "The fact is, > > > he was out at that rally, collecting information to disseminate to > > > the public. I think that makes him a journalist." > > > > > > Ultimately, Saunders says, it won't be journalists and bloggers who > > > decide the issue, but the government. > > > > > > "The courts are going to end up deciding who journalists are, > > > because, unfortunately, this administration is really pushing the > > > envelope in jailing journalists, and it won't end with the Bush > > > administration," Saunders says. "It will get bigger as people point > > > fingers in many ways, and that means the courts are going to decide > > > who journalists are. You may not like it, but that's the way it is." > > > > > > A couple of things struck me in this article, it reminded me of a > > > conversation I had with Josh well over a year ago, not long after I > > > had joined this group. I found him witty and passionite but I > > > wondered about "objectivity" and he basicly said the same thing to me > > > as he did here. > > > > > > It will be interesting to see what the future holds.... > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
