home

Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area

by TChris

It's difficult to discern a legitimate federal interest in an investigation of "possible attempted arson to a police car during [a] demonstration" in San Francisco. Nonetheless, because "the San Francisco Police Department receives some federal funds," federal prosecutors claim to have a need to subpoena blogger-journalist Josh Wolf before a federal grand jury. Wolf took some video of the demonstration, and federal prosecutors want to compel him to surrender the tape.

The real reason this prototypical state crime is being investigated in federal court:

While California has a state shield law that generally protects news reporters from disclosing materials, there is no federal shield law.

Wolf was held in contempt on August 1 for refusing to share the tape with a grand jury. On Friday, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay pending Wolf's appeal of the contempt finding, releasing Wolf after a month in custody.

Using a federal grand jury to investigate "possible attempted arson to a police car" is a huge waste of federal resources. Aren't there any serious federal crimes to worry about in the Bay area?

U.S. attorney's office spokesman Luke Macaulay declined to comment on the bail order, but noted that prosecutors have previously said, "We have an obligation to the community to investigate and gather relevant and material evidence of serious crimes."

Serious federal crimes, yes. But possible attempted arson of a municipal vehicle?

The federal courts in San Francisco have been working overtime to lock up those who decline to cooperate with grand juries. The same judge who thought it necessary to send Wolf to prison also sent away Barry Bonds' personal trainer, because the trainer wouldn't tell the grand jury whether Bonds used steroids (as if the answer to that question is a mystery). At least the trainer isn't a journalist.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected a challenge by San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada to a subpoena requiring them to tell a different grand jury their source of leaked grand jury transcripts in a sports steroids probe centered about the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO). The two reporters are appealing that ruling and could be found in contempt of court and jailed if they lose the appeal.

If reporters who have no subpoena power can learn useful information, shouldn't federal investigators be expected to be just as resourceful? Journalists should inform the public; they aren't informants for the police.

Society President David Carlson said last week, "This case is evidence of a disturbing trend in which federal prosecutors are attempting to turn journalists into arms of law enforcement."

< The Value of Political Populism | Labor Day Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 06:09:39 PM EST
    Isn't the real question, who is, or is not a journalist? So, what has the person in question published?

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by roy on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    Good work! Way to jump on the least important aspect of the story.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 10:47:40 PM EST
    No. The government has no business deciding who is or is not a journalist- what is or is not a a "valid" publication.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#3)
    by ras on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 10:47:40 PM EST
    JimAkaPPJ, Don't! Don't even joke about journalists being a definable (and protected!) class! Don't! The Left is devoid of irony and will NOT get it. Don't! /exclamation proclamation

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 10:47:40 PM EST
    TChris slays me. An attorney who's shocked, just shocked at venue shopping for the most favorable laws. I think I might hesitate to hire him as my attorney if he lets his personal quibbles get in the way of the best treatment for his client.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 02:26:55 AM EST
    So if he's a journalist, according to ppj, he should be protected. Glad we established that.
    An attorney who's shocked, just shocked at venue shopping for the most favorable laws.
    It's the difference bewteen a vigorous defense and a spurious prosecution. Apparently now everything is a federal criime because one way or another fed $$ is tied into everything.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:07:15 AM EST
    Stephen, That was a very poor attempt at a very amateur tactic - diverting the discussion. Quite simply, where does the post say that the author is shocked? T Chris states he cannot see a legitimate interest. He states that it is a waste of federal money. He states that there are higher priorities than this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I come here to read about legal and political issues, not to hear soapbox rhetoric. I see no references to the author's personal outrage. Can you please highlight the section in which the author states that he is shocked? I'll go back. Maybe I read it too fast.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:09:48 AM EST
    Shock is seeing someone run over by a train.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:12:26 AM EST
    Next word - Exagerrate To overstate, as in shocked. OTW (off to work) Labor day my a**.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:27:28 AM EST
    Sailor - Nope. Didn't say that, and ras was right. The final question I asked, what has the person published? If everyone has a website and posts some comments, then can it be said that the person is a journalist and due First Amendment protection? What if the person is a sports fan and posts only about baseball and has knowledge of a bank robbery? roy - Isn't the whole lead story about the blogger claiming protection?
    The same judge who thought it necessary to send Wolf to prison also sent away Barry Bonds' personal trainer, because the trainer wouldn't tell the grand jury whether Bonds used steroids (as if the answer to that question is a mystery). At least the trainer isn't a journalist.
    And neither is Lewis Libby. I am sure all of the regulars have contributed to his defense fund, and are outraged that Fitzgerald has kept after him...

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:20:36 AM EST
    Sailor - Nope. Didn't say that, and ras was right.
    You implied it and by denying it you shows that you are just playing stupid rhetorical games and positing strawmen as always. If he's not protected whether he's a journalist or not your second question is moot and proves you're being intellectually dishonest ... again.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    Please, watch the other things that begin to surrepticiously disappear from our list of "rights" this is yet another chapter our militarty is in training to become a police force now in iraq and afghanistan, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? for us folks. the criminals will need to put the american down to control them and remove the rest of what we hold dear, so that they own it

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    If reporters who have no subpoena power can learn useful information, shouldn't federal investigators be expected to be just as resourceful?
    why should they, when they can get it for free?

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution Justice Stewart has argued: "That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively." But as Chief Justice Burger wrote: "The Court has not yet squarely resolved whether the Press Clause confers upon the 'institutional press' any freedom from government restraint not enjoyed by all others." (emphasis added) For those having no idea what the 1st Amendment says or anything of the manner in which it has been interpreted. I won't name names - they know who they are. Of course, some people don't bother to do any research before spouting off about that which they know nothing, and will readily disparage those who have bothered to try and learn what the topical issue involves. The above quotes indicate the tension involved in interpreting this amendment, but do seem to make it clear that, in terms of the rights granted, there is no substantive difference between the "institutional press" and the right of free speech granted to the individual. To therefore assert that the press enjoys any greater freedom or credibility than the individual would seem to be incorrect. That being the case, it doesn't matter if the individual speaks for himself or the press, and since the "press" is undefined the logical inference would be that the "press" can be just about anything the "people" determine it to be, which would include neighborhood newsletters, blogsites, student newspapers, national newspapers, television journalists or any other venue that distributes free speech.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    The feds should offer money for the tape. He has sold before.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    JimakaPPJ: You seem to be splitting hairs about the definition of journalist. I would contend that this is entirely irrelevant based on the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Notice that freedom of speach is enumerated before freedom of the press. Freedom of speach includes the right not to speak.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#16)
    by ras on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    JimakaPPJ, You're still doing it! I'm telling you, they will NOT see your intended irony. Look at Sailor's comment, for example. It's a good pt you're trying to make, no doubt about it. But not with irony, not here. I've tried that technique myself - heck, I've even told them I was using deliberate irony just to make it clear - and they still went literal.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#18)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    If everyone has a website and posts some comments, then can it be said that the person is a journalist and due First Amendment protection?
    Is this your idea of a dystopia, Jim? Where everyone's speech is - gasp - protected? Where truth is an absolute defense? God save us from such freedom! I'll even take the Blogofascist angle and say: yes. What is journalism? It is, in fact, rather difficult to pin down. I imagine your definition involves stacks of dead trees, which is very convenient if you're supporting a more authoritarian response in this particular case, but breaks down when applied to, for example, Slate. Journalism, for me? As Justice Potter Stewart once said of pornography, "I know it when I see it." If there's a riot, and I want to see a video of it, who would I expect to have one? A journalist. To put it another way, a journalist is someone who does what journalists do; that's a rather circular definition, but if you are covering factual events and transmitting your coverage to the masses, then you are a journalist on that day. Any other definition seems like something of an equal protection problem, because you end up creating a "journalist's club" with more rights than the rest of us. My only quibble with this guy is that he apparently didn't release the video to the public. That would make him a journalist beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my mind.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    Sailor - And you don't want to discuss an issue, you just want to complain. Bad governemnt, bad GJ, bad judge. Nothing new there. et al - The issue remains, and will get even more muddled as more and more bloggers claim to be "journalists," whatever that means. The First Amendment says that the Press is free. I don't see a thing in there that says they can stiff a GJ, and I thought "shield laws" were to protect employees from harm when they were engaged in ratting out evil employeers.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    stagger - You raise an interesting point, but you loose that right when they grant you immunity. Bill A - I reserve the right to have my own understanding. On the other hand, see my response (above) to stagger. Scar - You write:
    To put it another way, a journalist is someone who does what journalists do; that's a rather circular definition, but if you are covering factual events and transmitting your coverage to the masses, then you are a journalist on that day
    Define "masses." And does "on that day" mean anything? Yesterday I was a Poker Player, today I am a carpenter working on the Palatial Retiement Compound's deck. Tomorrow I will be a supervisor of a work crew... Thursday I will be Consultant... Friday I will be a grumpy old retiree traveling on a Senior Citizen Discount ticket.. Such is the problems with circular definitions. A journalist writes and is paid for doing so, or at least is attempting to do so, FULL TIME. Other wise he/she is an amateur, gifted or not. And no, I see no special club for journalists. They are free to speak. They are free to not speak. And, like me and you, they are free to be put in jail when they won't answer questions to a GJ. But that, of course, is at the federal level, which everyone here seems to agree with until it comes time for a blogger who appears to be of the Left, is put in jail. T Chris wrote:
    The real reason this prototypical state crime is being investigated in federal court:
    And then quoted:
    While California has a state shield law that generally protects news reporters from disclosing materials, there is no federal shield law.
    Can anyone tell me why a reporter should be shielded for not reporting on a crime?

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#21)
    by roger on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    Jim, Phrased that way, nobody has to report a crime

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    A journalist writes and is paid for doing so, or at least is attempting to do so, FULL TIME. Other wise he/she is an amateur, gifted or not.
    Okay, so if I'm a heart surgeon who publishes a newspaper, am I a journalist or am I too tainted? Or how about freelance photographers; are they merely ancillary journalists and thus unprotected? My definition of journalism has to do with what you do. Yours has to do with who you are, namely whether you belong to a well-connected media conglomerate. That's a club. And it's a very destructive club, because it favors fawning pro-government coverage for painfully obvious reasons. I notice that nowhere in your definition do you demand journalists report actual facts to the public, or serve as a counter to government power. No, what's important is that somebody pays them to do... something, read a teleprompter or dutifully transcribe spin from unnamed sources, you know, stuff like that. And we've certainly seen this model of journalism gain a great deal of inexplicable power and credibility in recent years. But, sorry, I just won't accept that the Washington Times and Fox News are more journalistic than this guy. Ditto for Judy Miller and Bill Keller. I certainly think Ben Franklin would disagree with your notion that the mark of a journalist is a cozy relationship with the government and a billionaire to finance your propaganda. In his day, "journalists" who did nothing but praise the King while taking big sacks of money from him were probably tarred and feathered.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#23)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 06:11:38 PM EST
    Can I be a journalist? Do they wear badges? Can I get one of those cool hats that says "Press" on it? What if I'm a gay male prostitute? (not that there's anything wrong with that)

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#24)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    Did you see the irony yet Ras? LOL

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    Scar - You write:
    My definition of journalism has to do with what you do.
    You know, that was my point, if you bothered to read it. My secondary, and important, point was that you can't be a heart surgeon who is also a journalist. You can be a heart surgeon who is an amateur journalist. And that would be true of everyone. And where do you get that I believe they should be chummy with government? I never said that, implied that or thought that, for that matter. Of course if anybody can be a partime journalist, and if there are no rules, I guess we'll be seeing a lot more of "fake but accurate" memos... and a lot more of this. And this. Che - It isn't what you say you are, it is what society says you are. You can be a NFL star when you are talking to the ladies, or lads if you prefer, but come Sunday you aren't gonna be on TV. So scar and Che and et al.... Being paid adds a bit of proof to the claim. And even if you are a Left wing person claiming to be a journalist, or if you are actually a journalist. You gotta answer when the GJ says do it, or go to jail. Just like the rest of us.

    Re: Jailing Journalists in the Bay Area (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:53:02 PM EST
    So scar and Che and et al.... Being paid adds a bit of proof to the claim. Just ask Jeffy! Or is it Jimmy?