Comments on: Video blogger gets two days to return to prison

Josh Wolf now has more time to spread the word about what he calls an assault on First Amendment rights.

[chuck_whealton]

Nothing to do with "freedom of the press"

This guy has evidence about a crime that was committed. He's
no journalist. He needs to turn the evidence over or go back to
jail.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[lampietheclown]

You don't know that, and neither do the feds.

QUOTE "This guy has evidence about a crime that was
committed. "

You don't know that, and neither do the feds, because neither of
you have seen the unpublished parts of the tape.

The feds are trying to find evidence. That is very different from
collecting evidence that they know exists.

He says there is no incriminating evidence on the tape. He
recorded it. He (I assume) has watched it. Have you?

If the Feds came to you and said "We're an investigating internet
crime, and we want all of your drives and disks. We know you've
been on the internet, so give us everything. Hold anything back
and you go to jail.", would you consider that to be proof that the
evidence is there?

Would you erase anything first, like those pictures you took of
your wife but don't show to anyone?

Yea, that's what I thought. Go to jail, you CRIMINAL!

Lampie

[tverhaar]

Are You Serious??

You actually believe that if "authorities" come to you and demand
to see something you have that you shouyld be required to
surrender it?? Wow - we have gone farther to the right than I have
even imagined. Journalist or not - as was aptly pointed out, they
are "fishing" and have over stepped the bounds of the Constitution
to "collect evidence."

[Central_office_tech]

What if t was you?

You are in the park, you are filming your wife and children. This is the best footage you ever got of your family. Suddenly a riot breaks out and the feds approach you days later and want the tape. You know you only caught 2 minutes of the riot but hours of your family.

Do you give them the tape and never see it again? I know that isn't the same as this guy. This guy covers anti current government and protests. If he was part of the New York Times this would not be an issue. The feds have had a few dealings with the press since Bush took office. Maybe you should check the track record and legal presidence before you spout off.

[casual observer]

bloggers aren't real journalists

just because you write stories and publish them on the web, that doesn't make you a journalist. It's a slippery slope to allow every tom, dick, and harry to claim 'freedom of the press' when they have not earned the privilege. What, the Rodney King tape shouldn't have been able to be subpoenaed if the guy taping it had claimed he was a blogger? This is just a guy with a videocamera.

[davez2006]

freedom of press is for anyone

No law, means the government does not get to decide what is or
isn't by the term "press".

The Rodney King tape I don't think was wanted to be seen by the
police.

[Jeff Putz]

Who decides?

So then who decides who is a journalist? I hope it's not you, because you don't have a clue.

[skeptik]

so then, what is?

You make a decent argument, but not a conclusive one. If you and the government are unhappy with the current definition of "journalist" then perhaps we need an official designation. Because they could easily argue you're not a journalist unless your nationally syndicated, or working for a press source with circulation over 10 million, or whatever they want.
Cetainly a reporter for a local community newspaper would have a claim that he is a journalist even though he doesn't meet those requirements.
The current administration (of which I am mostly a supporter) has a nasty habit of redefining things on the fly to meet their current desires. This is not the way forward in an open democracy. In fact it sounds a bit too much like Russia or China for my comfort.

[Central_office_tech]

Ummm, wasn't that a journalist in a hellicopter

The rodney king video... Wasn't that filmed from a chopper? Just a guy with a video cammera?

[kenny-J]

Feds usurping power

I adamantly oppose demonstrations that turn violent or destroy public or private property. This guy is getting what he deserves. What is scary is the lame reason the Feds use to get into the act--fed funds may have been used to partially pay for a police car. If federal funds partially or in whole paid for something, if it's interstate commerce, or crosses state lines, they jump in an usurp the local authorities. With this and the Bush Administration thumbing at privacy rights, the DOJ mandating diversity requirements to local governments, and the secrecy of the DHS we might as well do away with local governments. The fed bureaucrats aren't elected, don't get fired or held accountable, Congress either can't or just plain won't control them. Democracy is dead in the US.

[Too Old For IT]

First Waco, then Ruby Ridge ...

Now this guy.

Move along, sheep. Nothing to see here.

[baike]

I agree

The freedom of the press is to prevent the government from restricting what people say. It is not a license to selectively choose to conceal information. If a person is a witness to a crime their occupation is irrelevent. Their responsibility as a citizen and member of society to support the rule of law overrides their professional demands. Besides, journalists are supposed to be all about the truth and informing the public. Concealing information is counter to that.