Perspective: Why we don't care about Josh Wolf

I'm so glad the media scrum surrounding Anna Nicole Smith is dying down. There are so many more urgent stories begging attention these days. Such as Britney Spears' latest whereabouts.

Meanwhile, a San Francisco video blogger named Josh Wolf remains in the Federal Detention Center in Dublin, Calif., where he continues to set new records as this country's longest-serving journalist behind bars.

Wolf's family and friends understandably can think of little else. He's become the poster child for a variety of free speech advocates who say his imprisonment vividly symbolizes the loss of press freedoms in post-September 11 America. You might assume more people would be listening, but Wolf's plight has failed to capture the public's imagination.

On a whim, I tried an Internet search. Google came up with 1.84 million mentions of Wolf's name on the Internet. Not bad, but far behind Britney, finishing second with 38.1 million. Anna Nicole naturally remained the people's favorite with a whopping 54 million hits.

I obviously stacked the deck here. When it comes to what folks find more compelling, large breasts always trump freedom of speech. What could be more American?

Still, this is more than just an additional proof point that our dumbed-down era still has room for further decline. Wolf's plight remains disturbing on several levels--not the least being the near-absolute silence from Silicon Valley or the tech plutocrats who chart the future of this multi-billion dollar industry.

It's not as if this crowd doesn't know how to voice its concerns. When self-interest is involved, there's no shortage of talking heads eager to bloviate.

In case you haven't followed the story closely, Wolf videotaped a July 2005 demonstration in San Francisco protesting a meeting of the G8 economic summit. The local district attorney wanted the unedited footage to assist a police investigation into violence which marked that night. The 24-year-old refused to turn over the full video to a grand jury. Because prosecutors brought the case in federal court, where there are no shield law protections, Wolf had two choices: comply or go to jail.

As of today, he's spent 185 days in jail and could remain inside until the grand jury's term expires in July.

Civil liberties-minded folks are upset about the press freedom issues raised by Wolf's imprisonment. But Wolf's self-proclaimed status as a video blogger also opens a Pandora's box the fourth estate would just as soon see remain shut. More than any case I can recall, the Wolf case reflects the changing way journalism is being practiced in the age of Internet bloggers.

In 2006, a California appeals court rejected Apple's attempt to force a couple of blogging sites to disclose their sources. The court didn't buy Apple's argument that the bloggers failed to qualify as legitimate journalistic enterprises. But the court decided not to decide the tricky question of what constitutes "legitimate journalism." To do otherwise, said the judge who authored the opinion warned, would be to imperil the very values the First Amendment was intended to protect.

Unfortunately for Wolf, he caught a bad break. If prosecutors had tried the case in state court, California's shield law would have applied. Wolf could have argued he was practicing the craft of journalism by virtue of his role as a news blogger about current affairs. It did not matter who his employer was. The state would have had its hands full trying to disprove that claim. I doubt that many of my colleagues in what's come to be known as the mainstream media would welcome Wolf into the fraternity with enthusiasm. But times are changing--fast.

What hasn't changed is Silicon Valley's collective quietude when it comes to getting involved. Considering the counterculture roots of so many who laid the foundation of this business, I expected to hear people weigh in. But the tech industry has been silent during the entire time Wolf has sat in prison.

It's not as if this crowd doesn't know how to voice its concerns. When self-interest is involved, there's no shortage of talking heads eager to bloviate. So it was that several stars from the high-tech firmament dutifully trooped to Capitol Hill last year when Congress debated Net neutrality legislation. No less a personage than Google CEO Eric Schmidt publicly lectured how those who understand such things need to educate government about the Internet's role in society.

Probably a good idea, too. How about extending that noble concern to a disquisition on the Wolf case and the importance of free Internet journalism--practiced in a myriad of ways--in that same society?

"It's rare that we as a company would get involved in something like this," said an executive with one computer company I spoke with. "There are so many other issues to deal with."

That's why I wonder. Who really cares about Josh Wolf?

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[lkrupp]

I hope he rots in jail.

The guy has refused to turn over evidence that will help in a
criminal investigation. In my opinion he is like the witness to a
violent crime who then refuses to tell the authorities what he saw
or claims he didn't see anything. Not only is he morally bankrupt
but is an accessory to the crime. I hope he rots in jail and some
criminal who benefited from our screwed up laws takes care of him.

[databyss]

not accurate

It's been stated a thousand times on a thousand sites that Josh has said none of his videos contain any footage of the crime.

He even offered to screen all the footage for the judge himself to prove this, but the judge refused.

The only goal of the federal government in this case is to limit freedom.

[Tu2Bene]

victim witness advocate

there are a lot of good reasons people refuse to serve as witnesses for the criminal justice system. having worked for many years as a victim/witness advocate for a Bay Area District Attorney's office, i understand your frustration with those who are reluctant to step forward yet we have to think of those who have paid the consequences for stepping forward. Witnesses to crime were MURDERED in SF for coming forward. There are many complicated reasons people make the choices they do. Josh Wolf is protecting our first amendment rights. I think that is laudable.

[suyts]

The guy is a moron

We as citizens have an obligation to assist law enforcement to qwell violence. That he is trying to hide behind journalist standard, (It's not even a law.)seems that he is supportive of the riotist behavior and maybe even participated. Any one can blog. There is no magic to it. All you need is an opinion. If that is the case then we all are journalists.

[protagonistic]

RE: The guy is a moron

You're right of course, it isn't a law, Freedom of the press is just
an amendment to the Constitution. But then I guess you wouldn't
care about the Constitution, would you...

[skeptik]

and you're an idiot

Here's the issue:
If he turns over the tape - full of interviews witht he protestor at the rally, he is afraid everyone on his tapes will be indexed, surveilled and harrassed. Not exactly a far-fetched idea these days in our current national security paranoia environment oh unlawful wiretaps, imprisonment without charges and harrassment of anyone guilty of being arab.
Yes, he probably was sympathetic with the cause of the protestors. But that doesn't matter; if he has no footage of criminal acts, the government doesn't need his tapes. Why are they so intent on getting them anyway? Why wouldn't a screening to an impartial party to determine if they would help be acceptable?

[anarchyreigns]

No, you're the moron here.

<eom>

[lingsun]

Journalists have no right to obstruct justice.

Journalists have no right to obstruct justice. They have the duty as citizens to assist law enforcement. The blogger is a moron. He isn't protecting whistleblowers or exposing government corruption. He's protecting criminals. It's a sick, disgusting joke to act like he's a victim. When journalists cover journalists, it's disgusting how they act like they're part of a holy priesthood with special rights.

[JadedGreg]

Preisthood Indeed!

Yes. I've got to admit that as much as I'd like to protect the Constitution, I think that the "mainstream media" is on the road to hell when it comes to Constitutional protection.

They can start talking about the news or they can go on stalking ladies with voluminous jugs until they die from drug overdoses. It's their choice to make, not mine.

[mgee99]

Normative Jurisprudence or Just Plain Dumb

The subject is really not Josh Wolf... which is perhaps why we are so detached from his plight. Really when you stop to think about it, the reality comes rushing in, and many just don't want to consider the alternatives.

Imagine a terrorist cell that seizes the idea that simply calling themselves "Internet Bloggers" enables their "right" to withhold any information they desire? Pretty abstract idea right... well so is the idea of blowing up innocent people because you don't agree with common conceptual ideas of a free society.

There must be reasonable moral and legal boundaries that are maintained to enable the structure of our legal system to sustain the weight of ever increasing and broader perceptions, regarding our rights and freedoms.

If we fail to recognize that freedom cannot exist in a world wrought with chaos, which is what anarchists seek to introduce, then we will suffer the gradual degradation of the very freedoms that many seek to dilute, until the no longer exist.

Josh Wolf seeks to empower and protect these anarchist and criminals, based on the idea that he is actally a journalist. An idea that I believe most people consider just plain dumb.

[mgee99]

Typos

Sorry... got carried away, forgive the errors.

...until "they" no longer exist.
...that he is "actually" a journalist.

[skeptik]

so close

You were doing good until the last paragraph. Josh seeks to protect law abiding citizens from unwarranted harrassment based on legal political protest.
His contention is that he has tapes full of interviews and the law enforcement simply want his tapes to complile a list of protestors. This type of profiling is long documented in our country going back decades.
His compromise - to show the tapes and prove no crime was recorded, but not turn them over so that authorities could not mis-use them was exceedingly reasonable.
We live under a government that refuses to follow laws - we wiretap illegally - under the same faux need for "security" that you're pitching. Josh is right to be concerned.

[zpdd7]

No understanding of real life

First, your understanding of what Anarchism is so juvenile and
ignorant it shows an intent to ignore the facts. Anarchists do
not advocate "chaos" as you imply, do some reading on the
history of the movement.

Josh has also not just "called" himself an "internet blogger" but
has been doing journalistic writing for some time. There are
also exceptions in nearly all shield laws that provide an
obligation to share information when there is a direct or grave
threat to the public. So your idiotic hypothetical is of no use.

The issue is whether or not the government can use the media
against the people they gather information from for the public's
right to know.

Yes there need to be structures in society to provide for law to
be executed and investigations to be carried out. But we also
live in a democracy in which the people are called on to vote for
those who create those laws. If we do not have access to
information from journalists we cannot make educated decisions
about the country we live in.

In this case much of the video has also been released and there
is only a "suspicion" that a police car was nearly set on fire.

Anarchists are not criminals by default. Their protests do at
times turn violent, but not all participate, see what happened in
past protests, such as the case in Italy, and here in the states in
Seattle. In both cases the police instigated violence and
sabotaged protests in order to discredit the groups. Appears
that it worked on you.

[JerryJumper]

Shield law may not Apply

Shield laws are designed to protect confidential sources. If the
video only shows people engaged in illegal acts there are no
sources to protect. All he is doing is obstructing justice.

[skeptik]

That's a big if...

His contention is that the video shows no illegal acts and he's willing to prove it. The government is afraid to take him up on it, so who's hiding motives here?

[alegr]

Why federal?

It's not even clear that the "police car" case is under federal jurisdiction. The feds "may have partially paid" to acquire the car. But who is holding the title? If it's SFPD, then it's SF's car, not fed's! Are local schools federal property, if they were build with federal aid? Isn't it all violation of boundaries between state and fed?

[Markomusic]

Agreed!

I hadn't seen your post when I posted the same thing. This is not a source shielding case at all. It is an evidence withholding/tampering case. I honestly don't understand why they don't fill out a warrant and take it from him. Has he hidden it? Obstruction of justice.

[fredtheviking]

Interesting Case

I am surprised by the counter comments. It's seem Bush's Orwellian style seems to be working on many people. What I am seeing, which I haven't seen before 9/11 is a willingness to give up rights for sercurity.

Already, I have seen Americans forsake Muslims population and have accepted thier mistreatment, because it all for the fight against terror. There real war of terror is not being fought in Iraq, but at home, against our own president. Who using terror to control his population.

I think if Josh Wolf got caught before 9/11, people would cry bloodly murder. But now they don't as many of us are subdued by 9/11.

[Jschneeky]

Please...

Just because there are two sides to each story (differences of
opinion) does not mean the country has "forsaken" it's liberties
in the name of security. IT'S A MATTER OF OPINION!!! It's just
like people condemning FOX News for "siding" with the right
(Republicans). This country is great because of the right to
express our opinions whether they be for the countries leader or
against, for the war or against, for the right to maintain sources
or not. Is Bush a great president...no, is he a ruthless dictator
who governs his country through fear and murder...absolutely
not. I would suggest taking a step back and re-assessing your
train of thought. My opinion is that YOU are way off base, not
those who just happen to disagree with you.

[curmedgeon]

Too silly to care about

Shield laws are meant to protect confidential sources. There is
nothing confidential about a video taken from a public vantage
point. This guy needs to grow up and quit fantasizing that he is
some heroic reporter.

[dmm]

Is there a lawyer around?

databyss said: "[Josh Wolf] even offered to screen all the footage for the judge himself to prove this, but the judge refused."

This certainly sounds as if Josh Wolf is acting in good faith, but I wonder if the judge is concerned about setting a bad precedent. The whole point of a grand jury is that a group of one's peers looks at the evidence to decide if a trial should be held. To this end, they have subpoena authority. Josh Wolf wants the judge to interfere with that, to screen the evidence available to the grand jury. That sounds a bit dangerous to me. What if a politician is put on trial, and his judge friend screens all the evidence, only allowing evidence through to the grand jury that tends to exonerate his pal? But IANAL. Is Wolf's proposed screening a standard practice in grand jury trials?

[zboot]

Screening evidence

Yes, there is plenty of precedent for trial judges screening evidence before it goes to a jury. For example, if there is videotap of some crime going down which also happens to contain additional footage of another act that has been determined to violate due process or some other protection of the individual under prosecution, instead of excluding the entire video, the jury can be shown (at the discretion of the judge) footage only up to the point in question.

[skeptik]

reasonable

You have a case, a valid counter argument to Josh's proposal. So perhaps the whole grand jury should screen the tape. I doubt Josh would care. What he wants to avoid is allowing the blood-thirsty prosecutors in this event to compile a list of names of people who were there, but for whom there is no evidence of committing a crime. He has fears it would cause trouble for them and I suspect he has a point.

A compromise is needed here and it should infact be precedent setting. Our prosecutors have burned the good faith of the public that they are acting in the public's best interest. And Bush (though I am more inclined to vote for him than against him in general) is leading this course with his illegal wire taps etc.

[open-mind]

Which is more absurd?

1) Scott Wolf's decision to withhold evidence and go to jail for it.

2) Charles Cooper's decision to portray him as some type of journalistic martyr.

I still can't decide.

Let's suppose Scott's crime was a little different. Suppose Scott's evidence was a smoking gun (that he found) instead of some video tape. Should he go to jail for withholding that? Most would say yes. What's the difference?

[skeptik]

3) clouding the issue with nonsense

The difference is huge. Josh says and is willing to prove he has no evidence and contends that the prosecutors are actually not looking for evidence of the crime they claim, but rather something else, something illegal for them to do. If he does not have evidence of that crime, they have no right to the tape. Period.

[Betty Nicole]

I Don't Care About Josh Wolf

I don?t relate to this guy at all and the fact that he posts
messages on the internets just like me doesn?t make me weep
for him. He should give up the tape. The fact is that a man's
skull was fractured and regardless if it happened at an Anarchist
Action rally or a Sunday School Brunch, if someone has evidence,
they should allow authorities to review it. Period.

This is not a case of a journalist trying to protect his sources.
This is about a kid with a video camera protecting criminals.

Do you think if he?d been at a pro-war rally, he?d have any
problem turning over the footage?? Probably not.

[protagonistic]

RE: Why we don't care about Josh Wolf

I spent some time in one war for this country and the military
defends not only Josh's right to do what he has done, it also
defends your right to voice your opinions. I can respect someone
who is willing to take a stand and go to jail for it even if I don't
agree with his stance. Just like I can respect Ali for his decision
to go to jail over his convictions while others ran off to a foreign
country.

Anyway, do you have any convictions you believe in strongly
enough to fight or go to jail over? If you don't I really feel sorry
for you.

[zboot]

I support Mr Wolf

The arguments most people are making only have relevance if there was an actual crime committed. It could be that the police are on a fishing expedition to gather information about protesters so they can be targeted later. There is plenty of video evidence of police deliberately instigating or targeting protesters whose actions did not cross the wrong side of the law. The point of our rights and our freedoms is to ultimately protect us from potential tyranny or police states. These freedoms CANNOT be circumvented just because we feel "this one time" it's justified. Everyone gets a fair trial, no matter how guilty they are believed to be or how "obvious" their guilt is. To deny people freedoms because we feel it is "deserved" will undermine them.

[open-mind]

If there was a crime?

From the article...

"The local district attorney wanted the unedited footage to assist a police investigation into violence which marked that night. The 24-year-old refused to turn over the full video to a grand jury."

Would a grand jury be involved if there was no crime?

[tanis143]

Are you that much of an idiot??

I guess so. His "right" as a journalist was not infringed on. He was able to record and use the video to his own use. Thats what the freedom of the press is about. Its not a shield to hide incriminating evidence from law enforcement. He was stupid for trying to hide it in the first place. If it has no violence on it, WHY BOTHER? He's some stupid idiot who thought he could thumb his nose at the government. When he was shown thats not the case, now its all about "Oh no, the government is trampling my rights!"

Please, you want to find a cause thats worthy to fight for? Fine. But this isn't one of them.

[C-LEVELTECH]

I support Josh

I support Josh and have been in contact with him simply because this is based on principal. He as a journalists has the right to protect his sources.

[open-mind]

Protect his sources?

What sources?

He just made a video tape.

Am I a "jounalist" because I own a camera? Am I a "journalist" because I posted this commnet? I sure hope so! Next time I get a speeding ticket, I'm gonna tell the cop that he's violating my rights as a journalist.

[DrumsNWhistles]

Not just Josh Wolf

I tried to get the attention of some of the top-read bloggers toward talking about Julie Amero, the substitute teacher convicted of intentionally endangering minors because malware caused porn popups to come up on the computer in the classroom she was working in, and was met with dead silence or worse yet, the sound of everyone worshiping Twitter.

Fortunately many other non-tech but at least passionate bloggers did find their outrage and are writing in support of her railroading, including well-respected names in the security/anti-spyware sector.

Josh Wolf's case is another travesty -- one I've blogged about and donated to. It's shocking that in this day and age with such a wonderful justice system (in theory, at least) such persecution can take place.

[open-mind]

No Comparison.

Based on the articles I've read...

Josh sounds like a crackpot who is snubbing the legal process in support of his rights as a "journalistic". Going to jail was his decision.

Julie sounds like a victim. In her case, the legal process completely failed because the legal professionals involved were all incompetent.

No comparison.

[rapier1]

I don't care

Really I don't. If he is willing to stay in jail to defend his
principles then that's great. I don't care though. If I am going to
be concerned about people in prison then I'll be concerned
about the thousand of people who are wrongfully incarcerated
rather than the one or two poeple that *choose* to be there. I'm
going to be concerned about the thousands of people who have
been victimized by overly zealous sentencing laws that force non
violent offenders into jail for decades. I'm going to be concerned
about the people awaiting their turn under the needle who may
(or may not) actually be innocent. These people don't have a
choice. Josh does.

If Josh wants to stay in jail then fine, he can stay in jail as long
as he likes. Don't expect me to give a damn about him though.

[alegr]

two sides

These are two sides of the same thing - constitutional rights and freedoms.

[Tu2Bene]

You lost me...

I do care about Josh Wolf and freedom of the press but I have to say the "big breast" comment was gratuitous.

[alanC58]

Professional Arrogance

Journalists, like some other professionals (artists, lawyers, etc) often have this elitist way of thinking that the values of their vocation outweigh all others. I?ve seen war reporters cheerfully boast that they would air a story even if it put American troops in harms way because they didn?t want to appear to ?take sides?. And I?ve seen artists who produce garbage that is highly offensive to most thinking Americans cry that their freedom of expression is being compromised when they no longer receive gov?t funding. (Which is our dollars by the way?. from the very people they are offending.)

Josh Wolf has no right to decide who is breaking the law and who isn?t. That is what our democratically elected officials are supposed to do. He and his like think they are standing by their principles. But in reality, he?s just another tyrant, imposing his morals on us. Lets get real. Do you think he?d spend all this time in jail if his video recorded violence at an anti-abortion rally ?

[foremski]

Other journalists don't care...

That's what is going on. As for tech or other companies getting involved, it hasn't much to do with them. We've written a fair amount about Josh over at SiliconValleyWatcher.com. This is about journalism in Internet 2.0, imho.

[rapier1]

BZZT

Content free phrasing penalty through the use of the term "2.0".
Penalty doubled for actually misusing the term 2.0 as "Internet 2.0"
which is both meaningless and confusing.

15 yards, next down.

(Internet 2 is a research and education network which uses the
same protocols but is access restricted to member instituions and
participants).

[Pauldsu]

Good lock him up

I'm glad they lock him up.......I think he just want to sell the tape. He could side with violent. lock his ass up until he come to his sense.

[IBMSoftwareGuy]

Why we don't care about Charles Cooper

First let me point out that I am posting as an indidivual, not as an "IBM software guy". My views have nothing to do with my employment by IBM. That said, here goes...

We don't care about Charles Cooper because this is a poor excuse for a column.

Pop quiz: Which of the following things that Charles Cooper stands up, like so many paper targets on the firing range, have anything to do with the Josh Wolf case?

A. Britney Spears

B. Anna Nicole Smith

C. Blogging

D. Large Breasts

E. Journalism

F. The Internet

G. Net Neutrality

H. All of the Above

I. None of the Above

Answer? Of course it's (I) None of the Above. Charles Cooper dragging all these cheap strawmen into the discussion is, frankly, trite and boring.

Josh Wolf videotaped a crime scene. It's evidence. End of story.

The bottom line is, some don't agree that it was a crime. So they want to invoke every red herring issue they can against it.

That is what is really going on here.

[solrosenberg]

Well said

I wonder if Charles Cooper would be singing the same tune if he were the victim of a crime for which a journalist refused to hand over evidence.

[mattbytez]

smoke and mirrors

I've seen Britney shaving her head on the screen at least 40 times. To me, that's not news and I don't want to see it. How do the the news networks decide what is news and what is not? Is it not the demand of the viewers? If that's true then people are more concerned about Britney than the Freedom of speech. More people are concerned about bling and breasts than corruption, lies, abuse, and global consequences from unjust foreign policy. America is in danger of being taken over without one shot fired. Josh Wolf is a symptom of a much greater problem which is American Apathy which gives into distractions of muse. The World Trade center was a wake up call in which many have already gone to back to sleep. I would normally side with the court, but the lies and falsehood coming from government should make everyone on guard for what is assumed to be "the truth".

[sanenazok]

The more I think about it...

the more I am convinced that this kid is a victim of some bad advice or possibly someone trying to make a "test case" out of him. Maybe it's his own volition, but nonetheless I think if someone explained the law to him he would wise up.

On the other hand, he could be just trying to get some free publicity. Putting yourself in prison is a very bad way of doing it, but then again others have cut off limbs and worse just to get noticed.

At least I hope he collects on some interview stipends once he gets out. Otherwise I have no other choice but to pity him.

[Cassady]

Unreasonable search and seizure

Limited government means that the U.S. Constitution forbids the government to search a videographer and or seize his video unless it a real crime has been committed.

UNlimited government is the idea that government owns us and can declare arbitrarily anyone an enemy combatant and deny them access to the courts.

Who cares about Josh Wolf? All Democrats and any Republican who has any integrity.

UNlimited government IS NOT the answer.

Don't let Osama bin Laden destroy democracy itself.

[sanenazok]

Read it again Cas

U.S. Constitution forbids UNREASONABLE search and seizure. Reasonable searches are those done where there's PROBABLE CAUSE. Here, he has recorded on video tape a public scene of an alleged crime. If that's not sufficient cause for government to get the tape, then I don't know what is.

By the way, the showing of PROBABLE CAUSE is what's required to get a warrant/subpoena. Government got a subpoena here so they're all set from the constitutional standpoint. Wolf's argument that no crime has been committed is IRRELEVANT.

UNlimited constitutional protection would result in UNworkable government, sorry.

[garrywdm]

$'s $loth & $nobbery

If it affected the Valley $'s, there'd be an outcry. If it affected Valley *******, there'd be an outcry. But comfortable arses don't like to be disturbed.

That's why youtube and 'citizen journalism' is booming, in the face of professional sloth and snobbery.