Version: 2008
  • On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7

Comments on: Freed blogger calls release a victory

Video blogger Josh Wolf, who spent 226 days in prison, agrees to release his subpoenaed video footage and answer two questions.
Video: Post-prison press conference
Photos: A free Josh Wolf

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (16 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Sure he "won"
by sanenazok April 3, 2007 9:19 PM PDT
Well he came to his senses. He must have realized that nobody would pay attention to him if he didn't get out soon, or if he got out just because they had to let him go due to time limits on contempt incarcerations.

Instead, he got his "victory." I guess it's time to go back to being the blogger nobody with the rest of us. Hope he learned some worthwhile work-related skills at the minimum prison/summer camp he was at. The last thing California needs is another hippy/anarchist with a video camera "journalizing" all over professional rioters.
Reply to this comment
American fascists
by ewelch April 3, 2007 11:14 PM PDT
The government is truly destroying the freedom it proclamis it's
promulgating overseas (Iraq). Hypocrisy is thick in this country. I
have no love for anarchists, or bloggers who think they're the death
of the "real" press. But the real contempt should be saved for
prosecutors who swear to uphold the constitution and then tear it
to shreds, and to politicians to who put holding on to power above
the interests of the citizens they pretend to represent.
View all 2 replies
The government cannot define journalists
by ewelch April 4, 2007 5:14 AM PDT
Anyone who understands the history of journalism in the US knows
that the government does not determine who is a journalist.
Anyone who can write is able to call themselves that. It's just our
government has decided that it's too invencenient to gather
evidence of their own, so now they redefine who is and isn't
journalists, and even now attack journalism itself when politically
convenient. The lawlessness is at the highest level of our
government.
Reply to this comment
Extrapolate
by suyts April 4, 2007 5:30 AM PDT
If you extrapolate that argument, then all of us can be journalists. Further, I've read the constitution, there is no jounalist shield law mentioned. Additionally, it is not only law enforcement officers responsibility to prevent/enforce the law. Us citizens share in the responibility.(Check out a good civics book.) This man protected and shielded those thugs for over a year. This makes him complicit in the action. He should still be in jail.
View reply
Very self-important
by fafafooey April 4, 2007 5:28 AM PDT
These people who call themselves "journalists" (mainstream or not) think very highly of themselves.
Reply to this comment
Regardless...
by dnotarnicola April 4, 2007 9:59 AM PDT
of the extent that what you wrote is true, it is partly becuase of journalists, and others like them who promote the free exchange of ideas, that you are able to post such a pointless, irrelevant statement.

Hoo-hoo Robin.
And "journalists" like Tim Russert gladly testify for the gov't
by fafafooey April 4, 2007 5:33 AM PDT
Tim Russert gladly testified for the government since it was against a Republican (Scooter Libby). I'm sure the libs think he's a hero for that.

But if he had to testify against a DemocRat, I'm sure he would have either gone on a hunger strike, or if he would have testified he would have been drummed out of the business.

(After all, these so-called "journalists" like Tim Russert, Crissy Matthews, and George Stephonopolus all worked in government for Democrat politicians - now they are "unbiased" journalists.)

Why isn't the NY Times reporter Judith Miller held up as a hero? She went to jail to not testify. Because she wouldn't testify against a Republican. She got no support from the media - and she got fired after she got out of jail.
Reply to this comment
why ask why
by skeptik April 4, 2007 6:21 AM PDT
Everyone knows the media in general is a pack of red liberals with an agenda to undermine decent morals and honest living in modern society.
Just look at the way they defended Clinton's right to commit adultery (literally) in the Oval Office, and they way they attack Bush for doing what he honestly believes is best for US interests in the war on terror. We've got one man so sleazy on a personal level his entire term in office was non-stop scandal after scandal being upheld as a great guy/president, and another who despite being accused of no personal wrong doing vilified as one of the worst men since Hitler.

I'm not here to say who is right or wrong, but there is a slant. A definite slant and it's widely acknowledged.
View all 2 replies
(16 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement