Wednesday, April 04, 2007

[silence] do you always have the right

There were violent protests in San Francisco against a G-8 summit held in Scotland and a reporter, Joshua Wolf, 24, filmed it. Federal authorities wanted the videotape of the protesters but Wolf refused to release it.

Result - 226 days in jail. On Tuesday, Wolf posted video footage after repeatedly offering to allow a judge to view the unpublished footage but according to him, this was refused.

Although Californian laws protect journalists from revealing material, prosecutors successfully argued federal money helped pay for the police car, thus making it a federal case and so he was incarcerated.

1] Did the US have the right to incarcerate someone for keeping silence? What about Woodstein?

2] Is withholding a videotape the same as keeping silence?

3] Should journalists be protected from revealing information to authorities, as priests supposedly are?

4] Should the Feds use the new FEMA powers to torture suspects to get it out of Wolf?

Inflicted on you by on

7 comments:

  1. BagWednesday 4 April 2007 at 13:15:00 GMT+1

    Another exampleof using laws that are available for a purpose not intended.

    And when will these people get some sense and lie. 'I don't have a video'. You don't think people in the old USSR coughed up when the KGB was talking to them do you.

    Jeez, you would think we lived in a free country.

    ReplyDelete
  2. RuthieWednesday 4 April 2007 at 15:00:00 GMT+1

    Journalists are usually protected from having to reveal information, so I'm surprised...

    Jail time or fines for refusing to reveal a source or other information are usually only levied by a judge for contempt of court. But gag orders that disallow a journalist from publishing/discussing certain information SUPPOSEDLY constuitute prior restraint and are presumptively unconstitutional.

    But for some reason it still happens.

    I find this a little worrisome...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lord NazhWednesday 4 April 2007 at 15:34:00 GMT+1

    1] Did the US have the right to incarcerate someone for keeping silence? What about Woodstein?

    2] Is withholding a videotape the same as keeping silence?

    3] Should journalists be protected from revealing information to authorities, as priests supposedly are?

    4] Should the Feds use the new FEMA powers to torture suspects to get it out of Wolf?

    1) if they can claim it is obstruction of justice or denying a court order, then yes
    2) No, giving a videotape is not the same as giving the name of a source (protected), especially if the judge can find something relevant that would be needed on the tape
    3) only in certain instances (like the ones they have now on sources); I don't think they should be able to withold information that would prosecute someone (ie. they withhold info on the criminal)
    4) this is laughable at best

    ReplyDelete
  4. James HighamWednesday 4 April 2007 at 19:37:00 GMT+1

    I ran this post past a Russian client today and he smiled. "It's much simpler, here," he said. "They come and get the video. End of story."

    Ho hum.

    ReplyDelete
  5. James HighamWednesday 4 April 2007 at 19:38:00 GMT+1

    Thanks Bag, Ruthie and Lord Nazh, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CrushedWednesday 4 April 2007 at 22:09:00 GMT+1

    I admire the guy's stance.
    As far as I am concerned, he is a prisoner of conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  7. James HighamFriday 6 April 2007 at 18:46:00 GMT+1

    I'd agree, CbyI.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)