Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Videoblogger jailed

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Josh Wolf — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 06:11:28 -0000

Hi, I was just released from prison this morning. I'm out on bail. I'm exhausted and don't have the energy to really dive into the issues brought up in this thread, but I do want to point out that it would've been virtually impossible to enter the conversation from my cell. I had no computer access while I was in jail, and wasn't even aware of this debate; so I think it's unfari to criticize me for not entering the conversation to defent myself.

I'm honored that Scoble's post sparked such a fiery debate, and I look forward to engaging in an intelligent dialogue in the coming days and weeks.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

GabeMac — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:24:09 -0000

I have an interview with Josh I shot during vloggercon. Robert you are in the background. I think it's a good overview of what's going on from Josh's viewpoint.

the link is http://watchme.xolo.tv/inde...

Re: Videoblogger jailed

clem — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:20:59 -0000

your right, you do not possess the right to defy a lawful subpoena, so it is not possible for you to give it away.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

clem — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:16:21 -0000

"Towards the end you see a supposedly Federal Marshal, gun drawn, with a laser guide, yelling 'Leave or you’re going to be fucking blasted'."

a taser. not a gun. he was threatening to "blast" the rioter with a non-lethal device.

what isn't shown in the video is the situation prior to the federal agent and others rushed to the scene, wherein the officer was alone on the ground restraining a suspect while a knot of riotters gathered and attacked the officer with something which looked like a 2x4.

you should be more honest.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Eddie Codel — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 05:18:59 -0000

"now what would *really* throw me for a loop is if the 18,000 cooler-than-thou san francisco bloggers/vbloggers/mashers/geekers actually threw a fundraiser party for this dude."

Excellent idea Peter! Guess what, we're throwing two.

August 19 - Cafe La Boheme:
http://upcoming.org/event/9...

August 24 - House of Shields:
http://upcoming.org/event/9...

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Peter — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:49:18 -0000

p.s. for all you freaks doing the government-worship thing, have a listen to what real cops really do for a living - terrorize people:

Bad Cop, No Donut!
http://www.badcopnodonut.fm/

Y'all need to get a little perspective. Just because you've always done everything you've always been told doesn't mean we all have or should have to. Somebody has to stand up for democracy. It sure as heck ain't gonna be you fascist IRS lovers.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Peter — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:04:32 -0000

and here i was thinking that the san francisco tech scene was just one big upper-class whites-only pat-ourselves-on-the-back-for-whatever-fest, and come to find out that some dude is actually taking on the gubment instead of selling out. holy cow. it's unbelievable.

now what would *really* throw me for a loop is if the 18,000 cooler-than-thou san francisco bloggers/vbloggers/mashers/geekers actually threw a fundraiser party for this dude.

redeem yourselves, Capitalists!

but seriously, though, why did this dude have to all go gettin arrested and all that stuff? i mean, doesn't he know i have a serious bandcamp or crapcamp or something or other to attend to this weekend? sheesh. some people are so inconsiderate.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

jay dedman — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:15:19 -0000

1) Lil’ Josh was acting as a spectator,

isnt this what a journalist does? youll never win the "what is a jounalist" argument. Its a person gathering information. If you do research, Josh works for a TV station and is very much a journalist.

2) He was more than willing to profit by selling some of the same material he is now claiming is confidential, and

again if you did research, you would know the details of the story. He posted the video to his own blog, and THEN saw the video on local news. So he sent them a bill to teach local TV stations they cant just take people's work without compensation.

3) In a balancing test, the right of a grand jury to discover information trumps that of a would-be ‘journalist’ to keep information secret.

again, Josh has offered to let the Judge see the tapes and realize he does not have video of the attempted burning of a cop car (it did NOT burn down). The judge refuses...and you still refuse to discuss this fact.

4)As I said before, I was a journalist before going to law school. I’ve given considerable thought to the issues involved.
You are, of course, free to spend time and money helping some wealthy, spoiled white kid throw a very public temper tantrum. I prefer to give my sympathy, time and money to the disadvantaged.

You continue to prove that you really haven't invested time in learning the facts this particular case. Your own politics blind you to the facts. I'd love to get a link to your blog do we could figure out your world. Instead you are simply "Podesta".

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Podesta — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:29:37 -0000

Jay, here is the California shield law:

http://www.ppagla.org/docum...

It is more heavily oriented toward members of the press than most.

The core problems are:

1) Lil' Josh was acting as a spectator,

2) He was more than willing to profit by selling some of the same material he is now claiming is confidential, and

3) In a balancing test, the right of a grand jury to discover information trumps that of a would-be 'journalist' to keep information secret.

As I said before, I was a journalist before going to law school. I've given considerable thought to the issues involved.

You are, of course, free to spend time and money helping some wealthy, spoiled white kid throw a very public temper tantrum. I prefer to give my sympathy, time and money to the disadvantaged.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

DAS — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 11:36:07 -0000

As much regard as I have for the "blogosphere", we have to remember that *anyone* can create a website and blog in a matter of minutes (not *good* blog or website, admittedly). If being a blogger is the sole qualification for being a "journalist" and *every* "journalist's" sources are to be protected, our system of criminal justice will grind to a halt pretty quickly. If SFPD gets Federal funding, I helped pay for that police car and I want the perps busted and busted hard. I have very high regard for our rights and freedoms, and they have no relationship to masked thugs riot and burn. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Your Right — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:38:01 -0000

It was amazing to see, as I read through all these comments, just how many people are so ready and willing to give up their rights and freedoms. The checks and balances that helped to make this great country the place that it is. If things keep going the way they have the past few years, I see us headed for police state rule. Some of the very things we use to fight against. It is pitiful to see in their comments, their weakness to stand up for the rights to keep these checks and balances. To be so ready to bow down to what ever the current government demands, with out questioning anything.

If some of these weak minded characters, with the inability to look at history and into the future, don't start waking up, they will be paying more than just money for high gas prices. My grandchildren, children, me, my brothers and father, and many more of my relatives and ancestors served in our armed forces, many loosing their lives, that we might protect our country and the rights our forefathers had the insight to set up for us in this new great country, with the help of the LORD. That we would not have the persacution they fled from in the old world and like still exists in a lot of the lands across the seas.

I extend a virtual hand of congrats and my hat is off to you..... Robert Scoble, Eddie Codel, Warwick, David Geller, Ted Shelton, Fred Eggan, Christian Flury, Jay Dedman, and Jonny Goldstein. In these years of trying times it gives me hope, to see people like you with the spirit of our forefathers standing up and fighting for this great country and our constitutional rights. Please keep this tourch lighted and pass it on so that we the people of the United States of America will not be oppressed, and governed and ruled with the iron hand that so many of the other countries are.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Jonny Goldstein — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:25:37 -0000

Podesta, you are mistaken in the case of the California Shield law. Under this law, the state cannot compell handing over of unpublished notes or media from a journalist. It's not required that he be protecting confidential sources or information. It covers the following unpublished information (I copied this from hefirstamendment.org/shield...

* Specific information obtained during newsgathering but not disclosed to the public
* Includes "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort"
* Includes newsgatherer's eyewitness observations in a public place
* Applies even if published information was based upon or related to unpublished intormation

As to whether Josh should be considered a journalist, he has contributed to a couple of newspapers and sold
his footage to news programs, including some of the footage in question. The law includes freelancers, so
under it, he's covered....if the jurisdiction is the state of California.

It's true that Josh is currently being
held in contempt by a federal court, and there is no federal shield law, but there is a lot of debate as to whether the feds should have juridiction here.

So whether Josh "Has a leg to stand on legally" depends on whether the Feds remain successful in asserting their jurisdiction.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Podesta — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:10:55 -0000

Jay, the editorial you cited ignores the established criteria for shield laws, i.e., being a journalist, having a source, information that is confidential. Since none of those criteria apply in Lil' Josh's case, as I've said several times, he hasn't a leg to stand on legally. A spectator at public event has no right to withhold information from a grand jury.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Rose — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:31:03 -0000

I was very sorry to hear of this. I'll be following the story.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

jay dedman — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:19:02 -0000

"For the record, I’m not going to lose any sleep over your paranoid theories."

Ladies and Gentlemen, LayZ has just left the building.
Real conversation, evidence, and reality become too much.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

LayZ — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:42:20 -0000

@93.And I hope any self respecting journalist that had evidence of a crime being committed would turn over that evidence without having to be compelled to do so.

For the record, I'm not going to lose any sleep over your paranoid theories.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

jay dedman — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:44:39 -0000

A new SF editorial sums up the argument clearly: http://tinyurl.com/hy87c

"But the really ominous element of the government's argument is the notion that a journalist can be compelled to turn over raw material -- be it notes or video outtakes -- at the government's whim. If that standard can apply to Josh Wolf, it can be used against CNN, NBC, Fox News or any independent journalist who is conducting an investigation or trying to record a chaotic event. Journalists are not agents of the government."

This should matter to anyone of us reguardless of your political persuasion. (i thought the right wingers loved less government control?)

Re: Videoblogger jailed

jay dedman — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:24:42 -0000

Comment 92:
LayZ(a very ironic and appropriate name) is especially good at spinning this conversation.
It's classic neocon style. Lazy is tres Fox-xy.
You and others belittle Scoble and try to shame him for having his opinions. What is this? 5th grade?

The issue is not that Josh Wolf is protecting a confidential source. Josh is defending his right to not hand over unpublished notes.
http://tinyurl.com/jja4p
(please actually read the article)

You keep saying he is hiding evidence of a crime.
He says he does not have any recording of a crime.
Josh has offered to let the judge view the tapes to see the truth...which the judge has refused to do.
If the government is really interested in just seeing if there's evidence of a crime...the solution is simple. Because the judge refuses to scan the tapes privately....it leaves open the question: what are the government's true motives?

You say that Josh and others are simply paranoid of the Government....that there is no proof that the government will use his personal video tapes other than to see if there's a crime.
Here is proof of Federal and local law enforcement agencies recently using videotapes to create databases of protesters.
--http://tinyurl.com/fzwby
--http://www.citybeat.com/200...
--http://tinyurl.com/73vx
Please refute real evidence.

LayZ, what we're talking about is setting precedent.
This court decision affects you as well.
You make clear you disagree with Josh's politics, so "fuck him". (good thing you aren't a judge)
But what happens when there's a change of administration that doesn't agree with your poltics.
And this new Administartion has proven to harass and monitor protestors who you support.
You go to record a protest of your people....and then this opposing administration wants your tapes because of some crime they say happened. will you want to give them up? will these rights then matter to you?
Be objective and stop spinning the argument.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

LayZ — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:49:11 -0000

And by Josh saying what is NOT on the tape pretty makes his shield law defense moot now. He's given the public hints of what the tapes contain. I thought he was trying to "maintain the confidentiality of... unpublished information obtained during 'newsgathering'"? If they was the case, why did he tell you what was NOT on the tapes. Should he have said he couldn't tell you what's not on the tapes.

Careful now. You now have evidence relevant to the case. Are you going to put on your "journalist" hat?

Re: Videoblogger jailed

LayZ — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:25:25 -0000

@90, You mean like removing "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually I would bet the Ninth Circuit court would side with the wannabe journalist given their history. If they can find a new law to make up in their ruling, they'll go out of their way to do it.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

LayZ — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:19:54 -0000

@85. Fred, you are another one jumping to paranoid conclusions for this specific case. You may THINK you no the motives of the govt, but you have no facts on which to base those opinions. Only your unwarranted paranoia about what "the administration" my think about protestors. As for what they are looking for, who's to say they are not looking for the cops who you say allegedly beat protesters. Wouldn't it be nice to have evidence of that as well? A crime is a crime. Let's get the evidence of all the crimes. Seems Josh is not interested is that, but rather more interested in getting noteriety.

And Scoble, I'd like the names of these bloggers you say have had access to the White House Press room. I mean, if you are going to throw me the likes of Michele Malkin or other columnist that also blog, then you haven't met my criteria. I want examples of bloggers sitting in the basements of their parents homes eating their Doritos, drinking their Mountain Dews that have been able to get press passes to the Super Bowl, or The White House.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Keith Casey — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:06:42 -0000

I think it comes down to a few simple facts:
* the shield law is to cover confidential sources and information; and
* the actions happened in public and therefore is not confidential.

The fact that it is footage of a crime being committed is irrelevant since the shield laws would probably protect the breaking of other laws (think of a reporter doing an expose into drug dealing)... but getting the footage from a security camera in front of a gas station would be different.

The interesting part will be to see where the 9th Circuit comes down on this. In the past, they've tended to side with the ever-encroaching power of the gov at any level they can.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

LayZ — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:05:29 -0000

@83 Josh can SAY whatever he wants. He should provide evidence of it.

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Biff — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:25:07 -0000

I love the spin...

"refusing to turn over videotape of a San Francisco protest."

More like:

"refusing to turn over videotape of people destroying a police car which is a federal crime."

Re: Videoblogger jailed

Christian Flury — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:57:33 -0000

As others have said I do not believe that the real issue is whether Josh Wolf is right or whether he may be considered a journalist, but at which level of jurisdiction this should be dealt with. I am deeply concerned by this tendency of central governments/jurisdictions - be it in Washington DC, Brussels or Berne - to grasp more and more powers and end up finding ways to declare everything a federal (or here in the EU: a European) matter. This undermines the whole principle of subsidiarity, decentralization, separation of powers and limited government upon which the countries of the free world are supposed to be built. And - regarding comment #27 - yes, this is - alas - not the only case, and the left certainly has to take the lion's share of the blame for this dangerous tendency, but this does not make it any better. I believe the American constitution is the best in the world and deserves to be taken seriously - the way it is misinterpreted today by the feds, Thomas Jefferson would turn in his grave. A European libertarian/small-government conservative (yes, we do exist ;-))