Videoblogger off to jail again

To hopefully put a nice little bow on this

First, Scoble, the fact that you have now publically stated that you know what is on the tape, don't be surprised to be subpeonead yourself.

Second, SC ruled back on 1972 that shield laws don't protect reporters from answering grand jury questions

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p...

"The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof. Pp. 679-709."

As Richard so corretcly states, Federal law trumps state law all the time.

Richard: subpoenas occur and aren't complied with every day too. Here's another couple from San Francisco Chronicle (real journalists too) that are gonna go to jail: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&am...

I'm perfectly calm. What is on the tape does not matter. He's legally required to show it. If you could possibly put aside your bias of videoblogging and california being where you live/work, do you really think this STATE shield law should trump FEDERAL law when it comes to constitutional law? That's the whole point of the constitution. It's laws are the ones that apply to everybody in this country. Nobody, videoblogger or not, gets to have special protection.

This is not simply a journalism issue. If he didn't live in cali, he wouldn't even have a journalism shield law to argue for.

Back to the calmness, it's not us who disagree with josh that need to calm down. We're saying he should do what everybody else in his situation does and what is required by law. There would be no "chilling effect" from him releasing the tape? Why is that? Subpoenas occur and are complied with every day.

ok guys calm down. there's nothing on the tape. josh has said that many times. he's even offered to show it to the judge who ordered him to be held in contempt of court, but the judge declined to view it. there is no crime or criminals recorded on the tape. this is a matter of principle that a journalist is protected by law from turning over his materials to the government. josh is doing this on principle. i'd have done the same. i have a degree from columbia univerisity's graduate school of journalism and six years of non-Internet journalism experience, so does that make me more of a journalist than josh?

Richard: I haven't, but friends of mine that I trust have and Josh himself told me what was on the tape.

Robert: You've seen the tape?

@11 True his story got noticed. No arguement. However his "statement" of going jail will not get noticed. Now that he is in jail, he's no longer news.

Podesta: his video doesn't show who damaged the police car. In fact, his video doesn't show much of anything at all. He's fighting it on the principle. And he's willing to go to jail for a year just for that principle. Is he doing it to be "self serving?" Well, if he is, it's a year of his life that's gonna be spent paying for that self serving.

Robert said:

"Interesting to hear his point of view from him."

Really? Who else's point of view would Little Josh express?

The only remotely interesting aspect of that POV is how, childish, mixed up and self-serving it is. Bottom line: The wee weasel is trying to protect whoever damaged the police car, and possibly, the persons who injured that cop. I will be among those who will appreciate having him off the streets again. Protecting freedom of speech? Only in his imagination.

Please define what a journalist is. Me? I go for the broadest possible definition.

Robert, weren't you a communications major? Surely you can narrow down what a journalist is. Having a blog, or, as Richard puts it, a video camera in your hand is not a reasonable test. That's just not fair to people who consider themselves journalists of the highest order.

IMO, journalism must fall within a category of informing without drawing a conclusion. Most safely defined, it is reporting in the most boring and clerical sense: "the temperature is 56 degrees". Anything beyond that can enter realms of fiction, advertising, editorial writing, commentary, yellow journalism, propaganda or something else.

Next time your favorite company reports earnings, watch the headlines and articles that come from Reuters, AP, marketwatch, etc. Even the numbers are misinterpreted to exclude one-time charges, or include one-time charges, facts are intermixed with commentary, hype or coiled criticism. The health of the press is not measured by the quantity of players but by the accuracy of the reports. Consensus is also not indicative of a free - or accurate - press. The sad state of reporting today is not due primarily to inaccuracy, lack of knowledge about the subject being written about or misinterpretation. It is, first and foremost, an issue that has to do with ethical standards and the lack of an adequately narrow definition of what constitutes journalism and what responsibilities a journalist has to society. The internet, with its mass dissemination and temporary/transitory nature, has actually made it more difficult to hold authors responsible and put "getting hits" via sensationalist articles ahead of careful thought and adequate research.

I don't understand the case. People being jailed for unpublished (or published) videotapes happens in China. It happened in the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union, there was a whole "samizdat" (self-published) and "tamizdat" (published "there") culture that was constantly being shut down by the U.S.S.R.'s police state because the writing was not approved or viewed, arbitrarily, to be critical of communism or the state. A particularly famous writer jailed in the Soviet Union was Andrei Siniavsky who wrote under the pen name "Abram Tertz". His anti-state writings were a double slap as he took on a Jewish psuedonym (Jews were prohibited from publishing in the Soviet Union). He was eventually caught, arrested and tried and spent 7 years doing hard labor in Siberia which broke his body.

Persecution like this is not supposed to happen in America.

As I read more into the comments here (thank God for comments), I'm beginning to see that there may be evidence of a crime on these tapes or perhaps the feds are fishing for information from private parties. Either Josh does not want to incriminate himself or he fears ratting out somebody in his circle. Either way, this is a personal property issue or a 5th amendment issue. I cannot defend his actions as being blogger/journalist rights. While bloggers are involved in communication, not all communication is journalism just like not all medicinal treatments are performed by "doctors". I wish Josh well and hope the outcome is not one that shatters my faith in freedom in America.

LayZ, Josh has certainly been noticed by many people seeing as how major news outlets like Time, the NYTimes, and Fox have covered his case. Whether you agree with his stance or not, he certainly has gotten plenty of attention.

I agree with Richard. I actually went to court on Monday in Philadelphia regarding an incident in which a person had recorded it on their cell phone. The individual that filmed the event wouldn't submit their content to the court/police so they processed a subpoena for the tape. He cooperated, but had he not; the police could have held him in contempt for withholding evidence of a crime.

Do you agree that he should be in jail? Do you agree that he is obstructing justice?

Just like my "statement" would not do anything, this doofus' "statement" won't make anyone take notice. He's only punishing himself What an idiot he is. Does the dude think he's Nelson Mandela or something.

LayZ: with the disclaimer that you must be willing to pay the price. In Josh's case he's willing to do the year in jail to make a statement that the law isn't right. I respect that.

If you steal my TV you must be willing to pay the price for your crime. Even if you think the law is unjust.

So, Scoble you advocate people deciding which laws they they should or should not obey? Great! I think burglarism laws are bad because rich people have more than I do. So, I'm sure you won't mind me breaking into your house and taking your TV, right? I mean, I think laws that prevent me from doing that are bad.

Scoble, you constantly change your defintion of blogger/journalist to fit your current argument. When backed into a corner about your sloppy fact finding and research you throw up your hands and say: "Well, I'm not getting paid for this cuz I'm not a journalist". Then when you see some random blogger hindering the prosecution of a crime you claim every random blogger, even 5 year olds, should be catagorized as journalists.

Godwin's law on the second comment! Robert, I thought you were a knowledgable user of the internet and would know better than to unnecessarily reference nazis.

"He doesn’t feel he’s above the law. He feels the law is bad in this case and he’s willing to go to jail to take it on."

He's an anarchist. Forgive me if I don't think his interpretation of what laws are good are correct, just as I wouldn't with anybody that thinks our entire structure of government is a problem. In Irina's interview, he says all branches of government and mainstream media are lost to the people. He's a few words away from attempting to invoke a revolution. I hardly think he's the proper person to decide which laws are good or not.

To be more precise though, I understand HIS position. What I don't understand is yours. You honestly think that enforcing a grand jury subpoena is comparible to nazi germany?

"Please define what a journalist is."

To quote Justice Potter Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced ... [b]ut I know it when I see it ..." Except he was talking about pornography and we're talking about journalism.

"Me? I go for the broadest possible definition. Not to mention that his video footage was used in professional news reports. So, even by the narrowest definition he is a journalist."

The broadest possible definition means that everybody is a journalist. And that is not what the founders intended. Plus, what they meant was that the press should not be beholden to the government. "Congress shall make no law" is important in this case. A grand jury, however, is entitled to get all the information it needs. If it were George Bush asking for the tapes, he would not be able to get them. And in a trial, the tapes may be protected as well. Those are different from the issues Josh Wolf is facing now.

Additionally, video being used on a news report does NOT make you a journalist. Were the Columbine killers journalists when they filmed themselves spouting hate filled messages and practicing with firearms? When videos made by corporations, like Microsoft or drug companies, are shown in news reports, do those corporations become journalists? How is that the narrowest definition possible by any means? Tom Green's videos have been shown on news reports, as have clips from movies. They're all journalists now ;)

This wouldn't be a conversation on the internet without at least one referance to fascism.

Man, I'm sick of the people who think anything that helps stop crime or catch bad guys is tolerable.

It scares me how many people are caught up in the "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" and "i'll give up my rights to keep me safe" mentalities.

Richard, you seem to embody both.

I have a word that covers both of those mentalities up: Facism.

I don't know who said it.. but "when facism comes to america it will be draped in the flag, carrying the cross, and hunting terrorists." -- ok i added some to the quote.

>But you know what’s worse? People who think they are above the law.

He doesn't feel he's above the law. He feels the law is bad in this case and he's willing to go to jail to take it on.

Not all laws are just and good you know. Need I take you back to Germany in the 1930s to remind you of that?

>It’s worth stating that Irina and Josh’s statements in the video that if you hold a camera in your hand, you are a journalist is pure BS.

Please define what a journalist is.

Me? I go for the broadest possible definition. Not to mention that his video footage was used in professional news reports. So, even by the narrowest definition he is a journalist.

He lost his appeals and you guys haven't gotten the hint yet? He has no legal ground to stand on. He'll continue to lose this battle. The case was made federal on a technicality, yes, but it's completely legal and subpoenas from a grand jury can't be ignored. That's why he'll remain in jail until he gives up or they drop the case.

Hurting a free press is bad. But you know what's worse? People who think they are above the law.

It's worth stating that Irina and Josh's statements in the video that if you hold a camera in your hand, you are a journalist is pure BS. If I video tape a family gathering and put it on youtube, that does not mean I was a journalist covering the event. Similarly, if one is an anarchist and video tapes an anarchist event, you are doing a favor for your family of anarchists. Wolf doesn't want to have to testify to who he knows on the tape, as he says in GETV's very own video. That is NOT protecting a journalist's rights. You're protecting somebody who has direct knowledge of a crime and helping criminals go free as a result.

Congrats Robert. You think journalists should be above the law. Now is there a limit to that or is it just when they are contributing to an anarchist movement?