Josh Lost His Appeal
Just read in the Chron that Josh Wolf, the videoblogger, lost his appeal. It’s kind of a shocker to me that the 9th circuit denied it.
Related posts:
Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2008 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.
It’s a shocker to me that he just doesn’t turn the damn video over. Would he be protecting it so much if it was a video of a cop hitting a protestor?
I’m torn- I feel for the policeman that had his head injured. I’ve endured a head injury. The scary suspense of hoping it’s not serious– I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
But also,there’s no card-carrying way to prove you’re a journalist. To me, if you’ve sold articles to agencies, and the materials seem appropriate, then yes, your materials could be considered “sources”.
I also suspect that SFPD is using some Federal court system in an inappropriate manner, as a loophole to get what they want- the graffitists and others in the rally that were misbehavin’.
Is a blogger automatically a journalist? Or just think he/she is? Does writing for this website make you a journalist, in the professional sense?
Most journalists have been trained via a formal education and/or from the ground-up in a newsroom of whatever kind of media. This education includes knowledge and the formation of critical thinking regarding law and ethics, besides reporting techniques and writing form and style.
What establishes Josh Wolf as a journalist? Or is he really a regular joe citizen in sheep’s clothing?
Bullshit. It does not matter one bit if he is a “journalist” or isn’t. He filmed a crime, and he owes it to the law and our society as a whole to be a human fucking being and give the footage he shot. It is this so-called journalist who is perverting a rediculous law for the benefit of himself and his own damn career, when he should instead be helping in any way he can to get the SOB who hit the cop and burned his car.
In my opinion, even if this guy was the Editor-in-chief of the New York Times himself, he is obligated to give his footage. In reality, however, he isn’t with the New York Times; he is just a spoiled little brat with a web page (which does NOT require any kind of expertise or degree or training in any way about law, journalism and the responsibility thereof).
The citizen-journalist vs. academic/commerce seal of approval-journalist non issue has been flogged to death for quite a few years now. As long as the facts are checked and the truth is told, I don’t really care if someone is a “videoblogger” or whatever.
If Mr Wolf feels like sticking to his convictions (whatever their reasoning or merit), then best of luck to him.
The 9th Circuit doesn’t think he has a legal leg to stand on, which ought to tell you something. I think he should turn the video over. It’s not like he’s protecting a source that leaked information. I don’t see how journalism, democracy, or his own career will be negatively impacted by his surrender of the tape. I do see how society might benefit. Attemped murder of another human, cop or not, is simply not cool with me. His innane comment that turning the tape over will have a “chilling effect” on his own future actions is reallly the most idiotic thing I’ve read in a while. If that’s all the journalistic integrity he possesses, he’s no journalist in my book.
Derrell. For the record, in this matter, I’m not saying he has a legal leg to stand on either. That doesn’t make him a non-journalist though. Mr Wolf has been more than merely self-published in the past. At what point does someone become a ‘real’ journalist?
For lack of a better term, I’m a freelance UI developer. But I used to work for companies full-time. Since I freelance now, does that make me all-the-sudden a non-UI developer? Frankly, I don’t care. “Just pay me” is my motto. ;-)
We actually don’t know if he filmed the crime in question or not. I believe Wolf has stated that he had not filmed the felony assault on a police officer, though he certainly has footage of cowardly vandalism.
However, I agree he doesn’t have a legal leg, or two, to stand on. Especially after the appeals court ruling. And, ethically, if he did indeed film an assault on a police officer, or any other serious crime for that matter, he should be morally bound to hand over the tape. If the tape depicts an assault on a police officer, he is not protecting sources; he is protecting a criminal.
In regards to whether a self-proclaimed journalist is a “bona fide” journalist, this is certainly a matter of strong debate now because of the ease and accessibility of media transmission by almost any citizen. Is the person who by circumstance obtains photos/video footage of an event, such as a natural disaster (e.g., tsunami, earthquake, hurricane) or a police action (e.g., an arrest or beating of a suspect), and provides this footage to a media outlet for gratis or a fee, is this person now a de facto journalist? I don’t think so. That person has accomplished something journalistic, but is not a journalist.
Is the person who inserts himself into a newsworthy event in order to report on it a journalist? Perhaps. Depends on the quality and balance of the reporting. Mr. Wolf seems to have crossed the line most professional journalists with scruples (granted, most on TV lack them) would try to avoid: from being a news reporter to becoming a newsmaker, and most of his reporting at this point seems to me self-serving.
On his blog, he posts by the handle, “Insurgent.” Hmm, makes me question his agenda as a “reporter” and as a participant in the rally he videotaped. Makes me question whether he has journalistic integrity. That handle certainly ain’t gonna help him garner favor in a court of law.
If you separate the personal glitz and PR of the story - young cutting edge journo-type goes to jail for beliefs - from the actual legal doctrine in question it quickly becomes clear that Wolf is just a piss poor test case to extend California Shield Law protection to federal cases (and that is, in and of itself, a piss poor way to describe what would’ve needed to happen here - which couldn’t have, because it’s a federal and not a state case).
The Shield Law is great, but it isn’t as much of a carte blanche allowance as people like to make it out to be - people being lay people and especially those making movies or TV shows on similar themes.
Here, we have a kid who is probably already not the best example for expanding the traditionally understood bounds of what makes a journalist or news/quasi-newsperson (contrast with the EFF Championed Apple v. Does case) trying to argue that unaired footage equals unpushlished material which in turn equals confidential sourcing. It was not an edited product that he had made and chose not to air. And it certainly didn’t present information obtained from confidential sources saying something or doing something for the camera they wouldn’t have otherwise said or done had they known Wolf would publish the work. There is no chilling effect here - except, I suppose, if it chilled later vandals, “anarchists,” and head-bashers, all of which were engaged in non-protected forms of “expression.”
I’ll be interested to read the opinion once I track it down to see how they framed it - but under the most tortured standards I can think of, I can’t imagine Wolf ever having been successful at this - and in fact, I think his attempt to coopt otherwise legitimate forms of source protection weaken the law.
He’s free to make a stand, but not to expect a pat on the head and a get out of jail free card. If it’s worth going to jail for, it has to be worth staying there for if you’re wrong. He’s wrong. If any court *might* have seen it his way, it’d have been the 9th Circuit- so game over.
Hear hear CD.