Video Blogger Charged with Civil Contempt

by **bvonahsen** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:45 pm

Here is the<a href="http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Vlogger_Charged_with_Civil_Contempt"> Digg article</a> <a href="http://Background:">Background:</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Grand Jury Update (Please Repost) Posted by Insurgent in Uncategorized In February of this year I was served with a subpoena to appear in front of a federal grand jury regarding a protest that I shot in the city of San Francisco on July 8th of 2005. I’ve since exhausted all possible means to quash that subpoena and was served a final subpoena on Monday afternoon [June 12th] ordering me to appear this Thursday, June 15th. I have been compiling all associated documents related to this case at the grand jury resource page. The case is somewhat complicated, but essentially, I have been ordered to turn over the unpublished video footage of the protest and to submit to examination by the federal grand jury; I feel that this is an attempt to trump the protections afforded to me by the State of California under the state shield law. The assistant US Attorney has asserted that the federal government has jurisdiction in the case because of the vandalism of an SFPD patrol vehicle. The US argues that as the city of San Francisco receives money from the federal government, a portion of the vehicle is, in essence, federal property and thus a federal crime may have occurred. Not only does this logic seem silly, but if unchallenged, will have a deleterious effect on the state protections afforded to many journalists both independent and those that are part of the established media. Just as the police vehicle has some vague monetary connection to the interests of the federal government, so to does any public space including the public roads and sidewalks. In fact, it is my opinion that if this interpretation stands, it has the potential to eviscerate all state protections afforded to journalists and could conceivably have such a dramatic chilling effect on both journalists and their subjects as to effectively kill politically contentious journalism in America. Sure, that’s probably a bit dramatic, but from my perspective this is pretty serious, and I’m curious as to whether there is anyone you know who might be willing to shed light on this story. It goes against my journalistic ethics to provide the footage to the government, and I have every reason to believe that if I were to comply at that level, I would then be asked to identify various activists that I may or may not know on my video and it goes against every moral fiber in my body to sit back and out people for their political beliefs; I have a decent sense of history and I remember that it was not that long ago that Senator Mc Carthy was holding HUAC meetings and inquiring from scores of people who they knew that might be Communist, and it is for this reason that I need to have all of the information pursuant to my case available to me and have had ample opportunity to discuss and assess all options available with my legal counsel before making any decisions in regards to how I will proceed.<hr></blockquote> Quotes from the comments on Digg reveal a complicated story. Never jump to conclusions. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>An important case study on modern citizen journalism. Dugg. No, it's a story about some idiot videotaping his friends hitting a cop and a cop car and then refusing to turn it over because he thinks he's a journalist. A crime was committed. They suspect his video might hold key information. Gotta hand over the tape. Sucks to be you. Since this Josh guy "considers himself an anarchist", it's just an added bonus that he will probably go to jail or be the snitch ratting out his friends if he does turn over the tape. Haha! Sure, the US democratic system sucks. No one doubts that. But sadly, it's the best the world's come up with (and successfully applied!) so far. Sure, Socialism is great on paper, but just try to successfully apply that. I doubt that. bootaw. It's not a given fact that the US democratic system sucks, and not everyone thinks that way. What would you prefer, philosopher kings? Playful despot? Some sort of magical fairy land system where everyone cares about politics and carefully researches their candidates? [sorry...hit the wrong button] Since this Josh guys "considers himself an anarchist", I think it's an added bonus he will either go to jail or be a snitch for ratting out his friends if he does give up the tape. Haha. Sure the US democratic system sucks, but in the history of the world, it's the best we've come up with so far. "Anarchists" don't like think about that. Activists and (non-violent) protests are cool, b/c they raise awareness and someday they may get a majority to vote their guys into office, but you can't expect that overnight. that page has _alot_ of content (and it's a bit jumbled) - I have no idea where to begin! anybody else know where's a good place to start reading all of these documents? (IE which one should I start with?) Try starting here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblog ... sage/45138 (he explains some back story and what is currently going on). This really has important implications for citizen journalism. We really need to support Josh on this. Links -- blog: http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/?p=188 video: http://blip.tv/file/get/Insurgent-Lates ... ate686.mov roy, A few points of clarification: 1) I do not have video of the altercation that occurred between a demonstrator and a police officer. 2) My footage has been subpoenaed in regards to an incident regarding alleged damage to a police vehicle. 3) These are essentially local matters and should involve the state government, not Federal. 4) This issue only involves the US Government because I am protected by the California Shield Law. 5) In pursuing this case, the US Government is attempting to trump State's rights and I feel it is part of a larger movement to eviscerate the journalistic protections or shield laws which exist in 33 states including California where I live. Last time i checked federal law trumps state law. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. If you have evedence of a crime that has been commited then why not give it over? unless you are trying to protect someone? Namely the guy who vandalized the cop car? So not you are a conspirator good move. It's my understanding that shield laws apply towards sources. So if you did a report on govt corruption, and they tried to go after you or your source, you can refuse to name it. It's considered a corner-stone of reporting and govt oversight. But how does withholding the full video of anarchists vandalizing a cop car apply to the shield law? There is no confidential source involved. I don't think any media outlet could argue successfully that the shield law applied to their videotape of a comission of a crime. If you had videotaped a rape in progress, and the govt asked for the full unedited tape, would you refuse? If so, why? What is different about this versus the vandalism of a police vehicle? Or is all about political leanings and 'stickin it to the man?" My taxes paid for those cars, so I want the thugs in jail. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> The govt is not after a confidential source, they're not trying to squelch a leak about a illegal govt activity. They're after videotape evidence of a real crime. I think you're on shakey legal ground. Also, the feds are probably involved for several reasons... Anarchists who participated in the attack may have crossed state lines. In such cases, the Feds can become involved. Anarchists organized online, their collusion again crosses state lines. Anarchists may be members of a group that is considered a domestic terrorist organization ( ALF, etc ). Each of these possibilities provides enough reason for the feds to be involved. And they don't usually just storm in. The state police usually ask them to help once it becomes apparent that the people involved are not just state resident It seems like the evidence part is the wrong place to debate fed vs. state. Give the (relevant portions) to the state. They can give it to the feds. Anyone who is prosecuted by the Feds can make the argument over fed vs. state. It seems like a crime was indeed committed. If there is evidence to that, someone needs to be able to use it to bring the wrongdoers to account. While you are technically correct, it's important to note that the 10th Amendment is read within the context of years of supreme court decisions, and given all of that, there are very few things about which the federal government cannot make a law. The supremacy clause (Article VI, Sec. 2) and the 10th Amendment work together and it seems clear, at least to me, that the federal government could, indeed, regulate this particular area directly (at least as I understand it). It seems like it'd be easy for congress to enact constitutional legislation in this area either under the commerce or spending powers. Sorry to say, Fed trumps State. If your video has anything possibly illegal on there, it should be asked for and handed over. If you are concerned, the tape will be used to identify/track political activists, I don't think the govt needs help in that department. They probably video tape most political rallies, and probably just missed this one. (Heck, they probably did record it, just missed the police car getting trashed). If the tape showed an assailant trashing your own car (not a police car), wouldn't you want the tape revealed?<hr></blockquote> and there is plenty more. I am unsure of where I stand on this one but I thought it was important enough for the readers here since it appears to show the growing powers of the state.

Video Blogger Charged with Civil Contempt

Video Blogger Charged with Civil Contempt

Who is online