By Reporters Without Borders. The watchdog group, on this day, protested attempts by the U.S. attorney's office to have freelance journalist Josh Wolf held in contempt of court. Mr. Wolf has refused to surrender video footage he shot of violent protests at the San Francisco G8 summit in Jul 2005. A hearing on this issue was scheduled for 01 Aug in federal court. Mr. Wolf had posted his footage to his website and it was then aired by Kron TV, an independent news station; after circulating on the internet, it was picked up by local affiliates of national TV networks. After assistant U.S. attorney Jeffrey Finigan saw the published footage, he asked Mr. Wolf to hand over all of the unedited footage he had shot. The grounds for the demand is that someone attempted to set a police car on fire. Mr. Wolf denied having any more detailed footage of the protest, or to having witnessed the alleged incident. He also insisted that he was protected by a Californian shield law. At the civil contempt hearing, he faces the possibility of immediate imprisonment, as well as having to pay lawyers' fees of 10,000 to 15,000 dollars for his defence and for a potential appeal; if the judge finds against him. RSF commented on this case:"This situation highlights how urgent it is for the US congress to recognise the right of journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources, a right that is absolutely essential to their work. This right is recognised in a number of US states but not at the federal level.[See my commentary on the Vanessa Legget affair, and my commentary on why indy journalists should have full free press protections. Personally, I think RSF is barking down the wrong well here; their statement appears to be based on the predicate that indy journalists are already recognized as de facto journalists. This is clearly not yet the case. --MN]"As journalists are not police auxiliaries, congress must quickly support the proposed federal shield law that would guarantee them 'qualified privilege' as regards the protection of their sources. The Free Flow of Information Act would extend the same protection to journalists at the federal level that they enjoy under similar laws in 32 states."
[Addendum (03 Aug 2006:) On 01 Aug, Mr. Wolf was indeed imprisoned for failing to compromise his journalistic integrity. As with the Vanessa Legget Affair, he faces being jailed until the term for this Grand Jury expires; in Jul 2007. U.S. District Judge William Alsup was very kind and gentle in ordering this imprisonment, commenting that he wasn't jailing Wolf to punish him, but that: "The purpose of this is to get you to change your mind." Seems to me this is something they do to people in dictatorships. American Civil Liberties Union officials say federal authorities are disregarding California's shield law, but that shield law does not apply to federal investigations.
On 02 Aug, Reporters Without Borders protested the decision and restated their ealier objections to this action:
"Sending this journalist to prison for protecting his material is both a serious violation of press freedom and a negation of the US constitution’s First Amendment. Journalists are not supposed to be judicial auxiliaries or police auxiliaries." [...]Mr. Wolf's lawyer was also to file an appeal on this day. --MN]"It is becoming urgent that the free flow of information bills that were presented to the US senate and house of representatives should be debated and adopted, as they uphold this privilege for the press. This would fill the legal void that exists at the federal level, where there is no recognition of this right although it is accepted by 32 states." [...]
"Wolf’s absurd and disproportionate imprisonment violates the American Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates that journalists have the right not to disclose their sources. We call for his immediate release."
Return to chronology 31 Jul 2006
2006, August 31: Striking a blow for freelance journalism
By Josh Wolf. On this day the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted bail to Mr. Wolf as it considers his case. In a demonstration of the Chilling Effect, Mr. Wolf has reportedly been denied access by some underground groups he chronicles because of the subpoena to turn over the raw footage he took which is pertinent to this particular case. Those groups cannot know, of course, if he will be able to guarantee their confidentiality any time in the future. If he loses this case, then he will clearly be unable to do so.
Return to chronology 31 Aug 2006
2006, September 18: Report of a decision against citizen journalists
By the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On 17 Sep a three-judge panel granted prosecutors their petition to revoke the bail of Josh Wolf to coerce him into turning over the raw footage of the protest he covered. The court decided that: under Branzburg v. Hayes, "The Supreme Court has declined to interpret the First Amendment to 'grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy.'" Mr. Wolf's attorneys said they plan to ask the full court to review the case.[The source article says: "Branzburg v. Hayes requires everyone, including journalists, to appear before grand juries if they have been summoned." I don't know how the U.S. courts interpret that phrase, "to appear before grand juries", but I suspect that the spirit of the ruling is interpreted to mean that you will not only show up but also answer any questions or demands put to you. --MN]
[Addendum (16 Nov 2006:) On this day a federal appeal court refused a rehearing in the Josh Wolf case, which means the citizen journalist will probably stay in prison until Jul 2007. Reporters Without Borders condemned the decision as an "absurd inflexibility" and commented: "This young blogger does not represent any threat to national security, so keeping him in custody is a completely disproportionate step. The judges seem to want to teach a lesson to Wolf, a young man whose insolence exasperated them, when their role should have been simply to give the law." I think RSF is a little over the top with that one, but I can sort of see their point given that they frequently critique arbitrarily tyrranical regimes. --MN]
Return to chronology 18 Sep 2006
2007, January 30: Denying a motion for release from contempt of court charges
By U.S. District Judge William Alsup. Judge Alsup sits on the bench of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and is currently presiding over the case against Josh Wolf. Mr. Wolf had recently asked Judge Alsup again to release him, arguing that imprisonment would not have its intended effect and that it had crossed the line into criminal punishment; he also pointed out that authorities had dropped charges against the only suspect in the vandalism of the police car he is alleged to have videotap ed. The judge, however, refused yesterday to release him, citing a prosecutor's statement that Martin Garbus, counsel for the defence, had offered to turn over the tape in exchange for a promise that Wolf would not have to identify anyone who appeared on it; he is quoted: "This reveals a realistic possibility that Mr. Wolf's confinement may be having its coercive effect." Mr. Garbus replied in a court filing 0n 29 Jan, however, that prosecutors had misrepresented his proposal; it was apparently made only to gauge their interest in such a deal. He further said that Mr. Wolf had not agreed to it and has remained unwilling to testify or release the tape.
Return to chronology 30 Jan 2007
2007, February 08: A report of a new record for the jailing of a journalist in the U.S.
By Josh Wolf. It was reported on this day that the citizen-journalist had set a new record for the longest incarceration of a journalist. The previous record of 168 days was held by Ms. Vanessa Leggett. Mr. Wolf equaled that record on Sunday, 04 Feb, and passed it on 05 Feb. This day made 171 days. The source article, by Adam Schreck of The Los Angeles Times, read in part:Wolf's case has won the support of several media watchdog groups that see his incarceration as an attack on press freedom.Mr Wolf is likely to remain in prison at least until the grand jury's term expires in July.Lucie Morillon, who heads the Washington office of the international group Reporters Without Borders, said there was debate within her organization about Wolf's status as a bone fide journalist. The group was convinced, in part, by the fact that he had sold some of the footage to mainstream news organizations, she said.
"It's very hard to describe who is and isn't a journalist nowadays," she said. "We believe, in this case, he behaved like a journalist, and that's why he deserves protection."
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, expressed a similar sentiment.
"He was essentially a freelancer," she said. "Oftentimes, prosecutors will go after freelancers when they would never go after full-time mainstream journalists."
Federal prosecutors in San Francisco dismiss such claims, referring in a Jan. 29 court filing to Wolf's "imagination that he is a journalist."
[See my commentary on the Vanessa Leggett Affair, and my commentary on What Constitutes A "Real" Whatever?. And kindly pay attention to the fact that persecutor's claims to the contrary, as with Ms. Leggett, Mr. Wolf is insisting on acting a whole lot like a journalist despite the lack of credentials or even of pay stubs. --MN]
Return to chronology 08 Feb 2007
2007, February 12: A granting of the James Madison Freedom of Information Award for integrity in journalism
By the Society of Professional Journalists. The Northern California chapter announced on this day that it will honor four San Francisco Bay Area journalists who have resisted government subpoenas in defense of freedom of the press. Those recipients are: freelance journalists Josh Wolf and Sarah Olson, and San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. Other award winners include: Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician who blew the whistle on the federal government’s warrantless wiretapping program; reporters at four northern California newspapers who broke major stories in 2006 using public records; and student journalists at Lowell High School in San Francisco. These winners are to be recognized on 13 Mar.
Return to chronology 12 Feb 2007
2007, February 14: An examination of the Josh Wolf Affair alleging federal abuse of authority
By Amy Goodman. On this day an op/ed piece by the Democracy Now! host was reprinted at AlterNet.org. Titled Wolf As Underdog: Indy Media Journalist Needs Protection, it is a call for a federal shield law to protect journalistic confidentiality. In it, Ms. Goodman makes two new points in the debate that I have not seen elsewhere.If that is in fact the case, then this is most likely a matter of selective prosecution.
- Martin Garbus, counsel for the defence and one of the leading First mendment attorneys in the U.S., says the government has done an end run around California's shield law, which would have guaranteed Wolf protection, by calling on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, or JTTF, which moved the case to federal court.
- Mr Wolf observes, there is "definitely a divergence between how the government's handled my situation as an independent journalist and how they've dealt with the corporate media, which have also been found in civil contempt."
[That a riot could possibly be considered to be a terrorist act boggles the mind of this editor. I see this as part of the creeping incrementalism down the slippery slope to totalitarianism by the Bush regime. And that the regime in question is not going after the media conglomerates which make big campaign contributions stinks like hell and further illustrates the eroding separation between press and state. --MN]
Return to chronology 14 Feb 2007
2007, February 28: A resolution opposing the imprisonment of Josh Wolf and promoting a federal shield law
By the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee. None of the delegates opposed the resolution, though proxies for Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Assemlywoman Fiona Ma abstained from voting. The portion in opposition to the incarceration of Mr. Wolf is directed toward Attorny Geneneral Alberto Gonzales, while the portion asking for support of the shield law is directed toward Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and Rep. Pelosi.[The abstention is quite curious; I would expect Feinstein and Pelosi to support a progressive and libertarian movement such as for a federal shield law. Perhaps they were required to abstain as they were named in the resolution. --MN]
Return to chronology 28 Feb 2007
2007, March 16: An airing of evidence indicating that Josh Wolf is a "real" journalist
By Howard Vicini. The Bay Media Lab host was to present new video evidence broadcast on San Francisco cable access in the Josh Wolf Affair. The live broadcast, titled: Freedom of Expression, New Challenges, New Sacrifice, was to feature discussion among media activists and journalists concerning this case and others that have resulted in journalists facing federal subpoenas and the prospect of jail time for refusing to cooperate. The key portion of the broadcast, however, was to be a newly-released video shot by another journalist during the same protest covered by Mr. Wolf, and which shows him shooting his video in a manner -- according to Mr. Vicini -- that is consistent with Mr. Wolf's assertion that he was there as journalist; including his responding to police orders to move back at one point, which are clearly heard on the video. Mr. Vicini was also to present a prerecorded interview with the video-journaler who shot the material, in which she asserts that she and her partner were contacted at home by FBI agents twice before they seemed to lose interest in them after the subpoena was served on Wolf. This seems to support a claim by First Amendment advocate Martin Garbus, representing Mr. Wolf, who says the government isn't really after information about the alleged crimes committed at the demonstration. Mr Garbus is quoted: "This was the use of an FBI anti-terror law to get information on people they can't get information about, such as anarchists. They know he knows nothing about the actions involving the police car."
Return to chronology 16 Mar 2007
2007, March 29: Indications that the persecution of Josh Wolf is entirely political
By the events leading to his incarceration. On this day an article was posted at SFGate, titled A man and his protest sign -- key in case involving police car at anti-war rally. The article presents information that strongly suggests the action against Josh Wolf has nothing whatever to do with law enforcement. Key to this conclusion is the story of Gabriel Meyers, a first-time protester at the demonstration video-recorded by Mr. Wolf. The part Meyers played was the Styrofoam sign that he either dropped or threw under a police car during the protest. The sign briefly caught fire, possibly from a carelessly lobbed firecracker, from the heat of the engine, or the action of a would-be arsonist. The car wasn't burned or badly damaged. But the fire became the basis of a federal grand jury investigation and a subpoena to Mr. Wolf. The perceptions of the events that led to the arrest of Mr. Meyers are as follows:After 16 months of court appearances, and after jury selection had started in January, prosecutors abruptly dropped the charges. They offered no apologies, just an explanation to Meyers' lawyer that they were no longer confident they could get a conviction. Statements by Villarreal and another legal observer, which were forwarded to local prosecutors by Meyers' lawyer on the eve of trial, led to the abrupt decision by the district attorney's office to drop the charges. According to Debbie Mesloh, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Kamala Harris, the new evidence presented "major factual inconsistencies with the testimony that we had." She did not elaborate, and the prosecutor, James Thompson, has been unavailable for comment. Mr. Meyers was the only demonstrator to be charged by local authorities with any crimes related to the disturbance around the police car, and he said no one connected with the federal grand jury investigation has ever contacted him; Mr. Wolf's supporters cite that as evidence of government duplicity. Mr. Wolf himself contends that federal prosecutors are not interested in the slightly damaged police car at all, but are trying to pressure him to provide information on fellow dissidents. In short: Mr. Wolf's incarceration is due to his defiance to authority, and legal excuses used to uphold it are an abuse of authority.
- Police description of the events: two officers drove up to the marchers at 23rd Street, saw trouble and called for backup. Meyers threw his sign under their patrol car, and one officer chased him down and held him as Meyers called for help and tried to escape.
Officer Peter Shields, was surrounded by a mob when he got out of the car and someone hit him on the back of the head, fracturing his skull.
Meyers was charged with rioting, resisting arrest, and "attempted lynching," or trying to rescue a prisoner -- himself -- from police custody by riotous means.
- Meyers remembers the events thusly: The car, driven by Shields, hurtled toward the crowd at about 30 mph and came to rest against the Styrofoam sign. Meyers he dropped the sign, which fell under the car, and ran until he was grabbed from behind by Shields' partner, who threw him to the ground and held him in a chokehold.
"I didn't do anything except run out of the way of a car and inadvertently dropped a sign," he said. Far from trying to incite onlookers to free him, Meyers said, "I was just trying to breathe, trying to struggle and prevent (the officer) from attacking me."
- Carlos Villarreal, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild in San Francisco, who was there as a legal observer: He said he saw the police car speed toward the crowd, scattering demonstrators, and watched an officer run after Meyers and tackle him. Mr. Villarreal said in an interview: "He had a chokehold on him. People were shouting, 'You're hurting him, you're choking him.' Gabe's face was turning a bright red. I don't recall Gabe saying anything. ... It didn't seem like he was struggling to get free. It seemed more like he was struggling to breathe."
Return to chronology 29 Mar 2007
2007, April 03: Josh Wolf is let free
By his persecutors, who were thoroughly repudiated in the process. U-S District Judge William Alsup approved the release after unjustifiably holding him for 226 days. In a deal with federal prosecutors, Wolf agreed to turn over the uncut video, which he also posted on his Web site, joshwolf.net, and prosecutors required that he answer, in writing and under oath, two questions: whether he ever saw anyone throw or shoot any object at a police car or learned about anyone who did so, and whether he knew whom Officer Peter Shields was trying to arrest when he was hit from behind and suffered a fractured skull. Mr. Wolf answered no to both questions in a court filing before his release. In return, his lawyers said, prosecutors agreed not to summon him before the grand jury or ask him to identify any of the protesters shown on his video. Prosecutors didn ot explain what connection the attack on Officer Shields might have with the federal grand jury investigation; the assailant has never been identified.David Greene, one of Wolf's lawyers, said Wolf had been willing in Nov 2006 to turn over his video outtakes in exchange for being excused from testifying; prosecutors turned him down. In a court filing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Finigan said that Mr. Wolf had complied with the grand jury subpoena and should be released. Mr. Finigan also said the government has reserved the right to issue a new subpoena in the future. Mr. Wolf says he will refuse again to appear before the gr and jury as a matter of conscience.
Also, see:
- Now-freed Josh Wolf went to jail ... why?, by Gene Policinski First Amendment Center vice president/executive director;
- Longest jailed journalist in American history freed, by Evan Derkacz, which includes Mr. Wolf's statement concerning his release.
[Price paid by We the People: legal fees, the cost of Wolf's incarceration, a very serious erosion of the separation of state and press, and a big slip down the slope toward a surveillance society where everybody is required to be a spy for the government. And all for nothing. --MN]
Return to chronology 03 Apr 2007