Blogger stays in prison, defying grand jury order [ Josh Wolf ]

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/16/6 | Demian Bulwa

[SmithL]

Blogger and anarchist Josh Wolf, spending his 57th day in federal prison today for refusing to surrender video he shot of a violent San Francisco protest, is well on his way to becoming the longest-jailed journalist in U.S. history.

To the government, the 24-year-old San Franciscan is hindering a federal grand jury investigation into serious crimes -- an attack on a police officer who suffered a fractured skull during the July 2005 rally and the attempted burning of his patrol car.

To Wolf and his supporters, including prominent press organizations, he is the latest victim of a Bush administration assault on journalists and is being punished because he won't help a law enforcement fishing expedition. Wolf says he didn't even film the crimes in question.

But Wolf's case features its own thorny questions. Among them are where the line between journalist and activist is drawn, and which side of that line Wolf is on. Another is whether federal agents are using the investigation into the rally as part of a broader attack on the anarchist movement, as Wolf contends.

The standoff was brought into sharper focus last week when an attorney for Wolf described for The Chronicle the portions of the video that Wolf has withheld from the grand jury since being called to testify in February. Wolf had posted an edited version on the Internet, parts of which were shown in television news reports after the protest.

The attorney, Martin Garbus, said the footage does not depict the crimes in question, but features interviews with about 10 protesters who shed masks to speak into Wolf's camera lens.

"They expected he would safeguard them,

[Sir_Ed]

I agree. I admire him for his stance.

We are all so eager to condemn anyone who is anti-establishment and does things like this, but in the future when the Hitliarites take over, and we see wholesale shutting down of dissident media like Free Republic and WE are the ones who will be jailed for refusing to give the government our sources, we'll remember his example.

Not that I'm claiming that we are the media, we just post on message boards, but there are media among us who, I'm sure, will be arrested and required to give emails, names, address and funding sources of good guys who do things like uncover Dan Rather's fraudulent claims.

The day is coming when all of this crap will be used against anyone who uncovers or objects to government policies and actions.

Ed

[Leatherneck_MT]

"It's different when it's "our" ox that's being gored, isn't it?"

Well said

[Idaho Whacko]

Admire him for his stance?

He caught a crime on tape, and he refuses to turn it over to the police. That is accessory after the fact, unless he had forewarning, in which case he is an accessory.

If someone attacks someone, and runs through your kitchen and out the back door, then the cops come in and ask "Did you see anyone come thru here" and you say no, that is a crime.

New technology, same crime.

[New Perspective]

Little pantywaist.

[Just another Joe]

If he has footage of the situation when the police officer was injured, he should turn it over.
If he doesn't, he should go free.

If he's worried about the police seeing other footage I'm sure there is a disinterested observer that can watch the footage and tell the police whether the footage they want is there or not.

It ain't rocket science.

[oldfart]

"He is protecting people who tried to kill a man by fracturing his skull."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is still to be determined, isn't it? One side (the government) says they want to know who did this and that information is on the tape, the other says it isn't on the tape and the government just wants to know who was there.
I don't know who's right here and I doubt you do either, but allowing government 'fishing expeditions' into private waters is risky business. Until I know more about the situation I would have to lean toward the side of privacy.

[statered]

This is more akin to him protecting Nazi's, not refusing unjust orders from them.

[CougarGA7]

Wow. You couldn't get that loser laid in a brothel.

[SmithL]

I suspect he's getting plenty, now.

[CougarGA7]

"getting" being the key word.

[dfwgator]

and we see wholesale shutting down of dissident media like Free Republic and WE are the ones who will be jailed for refusing to give the government our sources, we'll remember his example.

Josh would be one of those cheering the shutdown of Free Republic.

[oldfart]

I don't really want to get too far into this subject since it tends to get too emotional too quickly. Suffice to say that it has been explored many times in many places by many people. In closing (and this will be my last post on this subject,) may I suggest the following: http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/whiterose.html
By the way, the people responsible for these pamphlets were all beheaded... quite legally. While I freely admit it does not bear directly on this situation I think it speaks to the blanket appologism of and for government actions.

[monday]

"One side (the government) says they want to know who did this and that information is on the tape, the other says it isn't on the tape and the government just wants to know who was there.
I don't know who's right here and I doubt you do either, "

Oh, but I do know who's right. Using logic I can deduce exactly who is lying and who is not. If the information isn't on the tape, as our stupid little propagandist claims, then that information cannot be used against those who were there, and so knowing who was there would be of no use to investigators.

Since he refuses to show the tape even though he claims it would be useless to investigators, we know that he is in fact lying and that the information would, in fact, be useful towards finding the criminals who assaulted that man.

This is how we know that he is on the side of the violent criminals who tried to murder the victim.

I have no problem with people who protest the government. Politicians in general are wasteful, venal, corrupt, two-faced, lying weasels. I am on the side of anyone who brings attention to that fact, but when you attack someone physically, you go immediately from the side of the righteous to the side of evil, and make no mistake, there is no gray area.

The people who attacked that police officer are evil and deserve to be punished severely. If this guy wants to protect those criminals then he deserves the same punishment as they.