Blogger jailed after defying court orders

He was subpoenaed by grand jury, ordered to turn over video he took at anticapitalist protest in San Francisco.
The New York Times

The story "Blogger jailed after defying court orders" published August 2, 2006 at 5:17 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

Why should he be protected?

This isnt a civil rights issue - its an arson investigation. CNET, dont even try to turn guy into some sort of media martyr. Journalists arent 'more equal' than the rest of us. If your car was lit on fire, you'd sure as heck want the police to be able to look at video tape of the incident. It sounds to me that this 'journalist' is nothing more than an apologist for the arsonists.

Look at it this way - if your family was murdered and CBS had video tape of the crime... wouldnt you want the police to be able to look at it? Or would you say, 'ho hum, its their free speech to not give us the tape'.

[ajbright]

I agree

To suggest he is protecting his sources is the most absurd argument I've ever heard.

Journalistic sources are not criminals you record with a video camera, they are people who come forward to give you information regarding a story.

And just because this guy posts his personal views on a website doesn't make him a journalist. No doubt there are bloggers who qualify as such, but clearly most don't.

This insistence of web news outlets of placing bloggers on some kind of pedestal, as if they were the heroes or saviours of the world is as absurd as the notion that random criminals recorded with a camcorder are in any way journalistic sources.

No, this guy seems to think that because he has the ability to infest the internet with his rambling thoughts he should be placed in the same category as a reporter uncovering government corruption or investigating organised crime - and that as such he is above the law.

[boeush]

Because the ends don't justify the means.

Bard said:

"Look at it this way - if your family was murdered and CBS had video tape of the crime... wouldnt you want the police to be able to look at it? Or would you say, 'ho hum, its their free speech to not give us the tape'."

Oh sure, I'd want the police to look at it. And if the jerks don't cooperate, I'd want the police to torture them. Torture them good, I say, until they coughs up all the info and then some. Start pulling fingernails, and chopping off fingers. Threaten their family members; then send their families off to Gulags until they decide to cooperate. Why not?

BECAUSE THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

We either live in the Land of the Free, or we live in a totalitarian police state, Stalin style. Which of the two alternatives, do you think, is the American Way?

[awdallas]

Do you want the govt to control the news?

Do you want to see video of protests, or do you only want government-sanctioned news bits? If every journalist can be assumed to be an agent of the prosecution, there will be no story to report. Right now, you can tell a reporter the truth and have a reasonable hope that you'll not be ratted out. In a police state, not so much. There is truth and there is official truth, even with well-meaning officials.

[danjmccoy]

jail them all

i say jail them all, all in this case is anyone who runs afoul of the bush bunch. Then we can have a total dictatorship with all of the freedoms we used to have, you know, the freedoms a hell of a lot of our good people fought and died for.

[danjmccoy]

jail them all 2

i say jail them all, all in this case is anyone who runs afoul of the bush bunch. Then we can have a total dictatorship with all of the freedoms we used to have, you know, the freedoms a hell of a lot of our good people fought and died for,taken from us.

[BarbieLee]

Missing the point

It isn't about who was hurt or who was there. The concept is the same basic reason. If the Government, which is only people and not some deity entity, can jail every person who reports any news then we are all in trouble. Who will want to report any news except the storys "government" says is okay or are first censured and sanitized by "government"?

Losing freedom of the press through repression by government scares me to death. And Bush is a great example of that. So far the press has kept a close rein on his rogue presidential powers.

Because the person is not a large paper reporter doesn't mean he or she isn't a news reporter.
always
Barb

[Fray9]

Also

Also it shouldnt be forgotten that regardless of who he is and what is actually on the videotape, setting a precedent for forcing journalists to disclose information about sources would effectively nullify the rights of all journalists.

It doesnt matter whats on the tape.. if he claims it to be confidential then thats precisely what it is.

Also what others are overlooking is that while the incident may have been videotaped, that same video may contain other things as well such as interviews with sources done with the understanding that it would be kept confidential.

[nuckelhedd]

pay attention folks

Ok, the small of it is this kid is breaking the law. The first ammenbment doesn't give anyone the right to conceal evidence or withold evidence of a crime. It isn't free speech to take video of a crime and then use it for personal gain ignoring the request of law enforcement to procure a copy of it. That is what is going on here. They want a copy , they don't want to censor it they want to view it. To the issue of concealing his sources i say one thing, ********, he took the video himself therefore he is the source and that is not disputed and as such there is no prtection needed. It is already known. This kid is being a punk and deserves to rot in jail. Period. So in conclusion i submit that this is a case of retardation on the part of the moron who already sold portions of said video to news agencies as well as posting for free view via the internet. Unless the people on the tape are his buddies i see no reason that he should not provide a copy to law enforcement. At best he is promulgating the spread of anarchy by protecting violent offenders at worst (assuming the people on tae are his buddies or himself) he is aiding and abetting in the facilitation of a federal criminal(s) as well as being guilty of being a moron.