Resolution for the DCCC on Josh Wolf
Below is a resolution I introduced for the next DCCC meeting. Thanks to Julian Davis for his assistance writing it and his work on behalf of Josh Wolf. So far Michael Goldstein, David Campos, Jane Morrision, Joe Julian and Rafael Mandelman have offered to co-sponsor. I will update as the meeting nears.
Update: DA Kamala Harris came out in today in the Bay Guardian in support of Josh Wolf.
Here is the text of the DCCC resolution:
WHEREAS, Josh Wolf is an independent journalist in the City and County
of San Francisco who has become the longest jailed journalist for
contempt in United States history and whose incarceration causes great
damage to the First Amendment and to freedom of the press in the
United States;
AND WHEREAS, 31 states including California have shield laws upholding
the rights of journalists to protect the secrecy of their sources and
unpublished information;
AND WHEREAS, Josh Wolf has shown uncommon valor in his principled
defense of First Amendment rights, proving through his steadfast
commitment that he will not be coerced, and for such actions has been
awarded the highest honors of the Society of Professional Journalists;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the San Francisco Democratic Party urges
the US Attorney to cease its prosecution of Josh Wolf, requests his
immediate release from prison, and urges Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales to rescind the subpoena with which he was served;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the San Francisco Democratic Party
urges San Francisco’s Congressional delegation to support the passage
of an inclusive and robust Federal Shield Law that protects
independent journalists and does not contain significant loopholes.
Robert Haaland, Michael Goldstein, Rafael Mandelman, David Campos, and Jane Morrison
Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the regional US Attorney,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senators
Boxer and Feinstein
February 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
As a Democrat, I think busting whoever fractured a city cop’s skull at that demonstration is more important than defending Josh Wolf’s imaginary First Amendment right to withhold evidence from a Grand Jury. The SF Green Party’s website contains an anti-American riff by convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal. It’s a mistake for the Democratic Party to join the city’s fringe left in an anti-police alliance.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Josh Wolf was a journalist?
Where had his material been published?
He claimed to be a journalist after the court asked for his film.
Imagine the precedent that would have been set if the court had set Wolfe free?
Picture this: Some cop busts an anarchists head in. A friend of the cop films the whole thing. A judge tries to hold the cop’s friend in contempt. The fascist cop’s friend says to the judge:
“Sorry, but I’m like a blogger? Like a journalist? Nothing published yet, you know, but I AM. So you can’t have my movie. See Josh Wolf vs. the San Francisco Police department for the precedence for this case.”
February 28th, 2007 at 8:45 am
The Chron reported yesterday that the police officer who had his head bashed in by the anarchist is openly gay.
If a different run-of-the-mill blogger with a video cam had filmed a gay man (say, our police officer, but out of uniform) getting his head bashed in by a redneck (but in the Castro instead of the working-class Mission), would the Green Party have been so adament about defending the blogger’s right to withhold evidence from the grand jury?
All responses welcome.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:47 am
I don’t think the issue here is Josh Wolf’s journalistic credentials. He has been in jail a long, long time, and if he did something wrong, he has already paid the price for it. They ought to let him go and put an end to this drama.
The real villan in all this is San Francisco’s radical anarchist underground, which is peopled by boys and girls from the suburbs engaged in romantic 1930s revoutionary play. The game got out of hand and they almost killed a policeman. I wish these boys and girls would take their game to cyberspace or some other harmless realm where real flesh and blood isn’t spilled.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:48 am
“WHEREAS, Josh Wolf is an independent journalist”
He is? That makes all of us independent journalists, too, because Wolf had never had anything published at all before he sold a part of his film to a local ABC affiliate.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Let him rot in prison while the ACLU does it’s best to convince us that he is a “journalist”.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I am curious, how do you define “journalist?” I was familiar with Josh’s work long before he was thrown in jail not because I knew him, but because he regularly produced video and stories of demonstrations and whatnot around town.
Does the person need to make money at it? How much money does someone need to make to qualify?
Just saying “he’s not a journalist” doesn’t make that true. What are the criteria?
February 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
It sounds like many people agree with the statements made by Debra Saunders regarding Josh Wolf’s status as a journalist:
“He does not work for a news organization. He does not answer to editors who fact check.”
“Wolf had no confidential source agreement. He was filming public protests; those protesters had no expectation of privacy.”
Regarding Wolf’s work as an “archivist”, does this mean that if someone keeps a photo album in their house, they should also be considered a journalist? I think not.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Sasha,
I concur that it is difficult to define “journalist.” And I agree that he should be released from custody because our laws dictate that a suspect in a crime must be charged with a crime or released without detention.
However, imagine the precedent that the grand jury would have set by letting Wolfe free.
Here it is:
Any time a KluKluxKlan member or a neo-Nazi films one of his friends bashing the head of an African-American or a Jew, he would be able to withhold the evidence from a grand jury by creating his own blogsite and/or distributing his film to like-minded people and calling himself a “journalist.”
That, in essence, is my argument against Wolfe. You say he had distributed his earlier film presentations of anarchists to people around town. So what?
February 28th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Have any of you ever heard of cop watch? Unless we had people with video cameras there at every demo, taking footage for our side, we would be wide open to all kinds of potential police abuses. Also, as to the examples involving police taking footage, you can not legally be a police officer, and a journalist, at the same time. Nor could you collude with your friend to have him represent himself as such. Why are you so biased in favor of the police? Esp. when they’re working for the feds, and when most of them don’t even live in this city of ours.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Liam,
I am not biased in favor of the police at all.
If somebody films a policeman bashing an anarchist’s head in, and a grand jury or the anarchist’s lawyer demands to see the film, the man with the camera should have to hand it over. Just like Wolf should.
Now, Liam,
How about my KluKluxKlan analogy above? Would you grant a fascist blogger filming a Klansmen bashing in the head of an African-American as much leeway as you are willing to grant Wolf?
March 1st, 2007 at 6:43 am
Nakayama: the hate crime you describe could most likely be prosecuted without the additional video footage. Also, this is a spurious example, because we are talking about damage to property (a police car), not to human beings. If you know anything about the history of resistance and protest, you would know that damage to property, esp. that of the state, is not usually considered a violent crime by anyone except for the police.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
LIAM WROTE:
“Also, this is a spurious example, because we are talking about damage to property (a police car), not to human beings.”
Um, Liam?
The policeman received a concusion when someone bashed his head in with a rock, and he spend 7 days in hospital.
So smashing a skull is “Damage to property”??!
March 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
My friend, as I understand it, the reason that this case is being handled by a federal grand jury is because the police vehicle that was damaged in the incident was at least in part paid for through federal funds. Otherwise, this would not be a federal case to begin with, and Josh would not be faced with a grand jury subpeona.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Liam is right, the only reason he is in jail is due to the feds trying to use damage to a police car.
California has a shield law, that is why they moved this to the federal level.
Josh assured the judge that there was no footage of the attack on the officer, and OFFERED TO HAVE THE JUDGE SEE THE FILM so he could know Josh was not lying.
The JUDGE REFUSED.
This is an attempt to silence journalists, not to capture the person who attacked the cop.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Yes, a technicality. But sometimes that is how justice needs to be administered.
You never answered my question about the KluKluxKlan video camera-wielding “journalist.” Would he deserved protection, too?
Again, the precedent that would be set if Wolf were set free is atrocious: Anybody with a video cam and a blog could call himself a “journalist” and avoid justice.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Also,
Liam wrote:
“You can not legally be a police officer, and a journalist, at the same time.”
Really? According to the Josh Wolf definition of “journalist”, anybody with a blog and a camcorder is a “journalist”. That means there must be thousands of policemen out there who are “journalists.”
Remember, before this incident, Josh Wolf was just a guy who filmed his anarchist friends destroying property and had a blog.
I could become a “journalist” tomorrow if I wanted. You, too.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:07 am
Yes, most likely so. That’s the magic of blogs, and video blogs, they democratize the 4th estate. However, any police officer who decided to act as both police officer, and journalist, at the same time, would certainly be engaged in a questionable ethical practice, if not an outright illegality. In response to your whole KKK analogy, Josh did not collude with anyone who committed an illegal act, nor did he commit an illegal act, all he did was take some video footage. Spurious example.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
“In response to your whole KKK analogy, Josh did not collude with anyone who committed an illegal act, nor did he commit an illegal act, all he did was take some video footage. Spurious example.”
Liam, I don’t think it is a spurious analogy at all.
The fascist, KKKer, or Nazi would not have to “collude” with anyone. He would only have to film someone of equal ilk beating up a Jew or an African-American, even by accident. And, according to WOLF LOGIC, he would be able to withhold the film from a court of law by setting up a blogsite and calling himself a “journalist.”
The fascist would be able to avoid charges and jail time, and would be free to continue his hate-mongering.
That, in my view, is the dangerous precedent that the Wolfe case would have inspired if the judge had acted differently.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Why would that be a dangerous precedent? Like Liam, I find Nakayama’s analogy between Josh Wolf and a hypothetical Klansman to be spurious. Nevertheless, taking the hypothetical at face value, my answer is that of course the Klansman should enjoy the same legal protection as Josh Wolf or any other similarly-situated person. If someone is a “journalist” within the meaning of the state shield law, they’re entitled to protection within the scope of that law; end of story.
I know nothing about Josh Wolf apart from this incident, so I have no basis to form an opinion one way or the other as to whether he would or should be treated as a journalist for this purpose. Nor am I familiar enough with the California shield law to know whether, and if so how, the statute or the courts have defined “journalist”. The point is that anyone — Josh Wolf, a Klansman, Edward R. Murrow, whoever — claiming protection under the shield law would have to assert that claim in court, and it would be up to the court to decide whether the law applies.
What’s happened in Josh Wolf’s case, in contrast, is that the Bush administration yanked the case into federal court on the tissue-thin pretext that a police car damaged in the incident had been paid for, in part, with federal funds. The only reason that happened is that the feds wanted to get around the California shield law altogether. Which is to say, they wanted to subvert the democratic will of the people of California, as expressed in our state law — not because of any countervailing Constitutional principal under which federal authority properly trumps state authority, but merely to suit the convenience and political agenda of this Administration.
Whether the shield law ought to apply to someone like Josh Wolf is a question about which reasonable minds can and do differ. I see merit in the positions on both sides. But that is a question that should properly be resolved through the democratic and legal institutions of the State of California — i.e. the legislature that enacted the law, and the courts that interpret and apply it — not by an unaccountable Federal administration that has amply demonstrated its contempt for both democracy and the rule of law. And that, not Josh Wolf’s credentials, is the real issue in this case.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Eric,
You claim that Wolf has been held in contempt on a technicality, but quite the opposite was true. The anarchist smashing a gay man’s skull would have been set free on a technicality had his friends not nicked a police car was well. That is the true technical glitch here.
The judge had no choice but to hold Wolf in contempt, given that he may have filmed a man smashing a gay man’s skull in with a rock (a gay man in uniform). There is nothing at all spurious about this analogy. Think of the victim as a gay man rather than a policeman, and the logic becomes apparent.
If Wolf had filmed a rock-thrower smashing a gay man’s head open in the Castro instead of a gay man (in uniform) in the working-class Mission District, the Green Party would not have been so adamant about jumping to Wolf’s defense.
Also, federal law always trumps state law (funny how we are all such adamant supporters of states’ rights, but only when they are tailored to our views; I myself, a supporter of strict gun control, like to see local laws supercede federal, but the law is the law, folks).
What is SPURIOUS here is your willingness to apply one set of rules to anarchists and another to cops.
I say he who casts the first stone is guilty–whether anarchist or cop. To think otherwise is SPURIOUS.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:00 am
Think of yourself as a queer, Nakayama. In fact, this has reached the point where I am insulted beyond words. Stop using queers “as examples”. Stop using us to justify your contorted logic. Stop using all caps, and most of all, stop using my name.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 am
P.S. The Josh Wolf issue seems to be one that local Greens and local Dems agree upon right now. Why is it that you save the brunt of your attack for the Green Party? Speaking of intellectual biases ..
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Okay, I can see we are going round and round in circles here, and I have somehow insulted you with my rational arguments.
The gist of my argument is this:
1. Josh Wolfe is no more a “journalist” than I am or anybody else with a camcorder and a will to use it: hence, he does not deserve press immunity.
2. If ANYBODY gets smashed in the head with a rock (anarchist, cop, butcher, baker, candlestick maker), the legal system is obliged to find the culprit–even from a camcorder-wielding anarchist sympathizer.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
You claim that Wolf has been held in contempt on a technicalityThe anarchist smashing a gay man’s skull would have been set free on a technicality had his friends not nicked a police car was well.
Nonsense. Again, Nakayama assumes facts nowhere in evidence.
First, as a previous commenter mentioned, Wolf has declared, in court, that he has no footage of the assault, and offered to provide his tape for an in camera examination by the judge to prove as much. The judge, for whatever reason, declined.
Second, as I pointed out in my initial post, it is by no means certain that a state court would have upheld Josh Wolf’s shield law claim; it might have agreed that Wolf is not protected under the shield law. Second, even if the state court did conclude that the shield law applied, Wolf’s video footage would hardly be essential for an arrest, indictment and conviction for that horrible and inexcusable assault (which, to my mind, is just as horrible and inexcusable regardless of whether I think of the victim as a Gay man, a police officer, a fellow San Franciscan, or — as is actually the case — all three and more).
Finally, there were, presumably, numerous witnesses to the assault. Not all of them were “anarchists”[*] or their sympathizers. Certainly the victim of the assault would himself be a competent and credible witness. It is difficult to imagine that the perpetrator in this case would not have been convicted in any court.
[* As someone with very strong anarchist sympathies, I take exception to the self-identification of the perpetrators in this case as “anarchists”. They clearly understand nothing of the actual philosophy of anarchism, which is predicated, above all, on the principle that neither individuals nor institutions — including the state — have the right to use violence against others except in self-defense. It is deeply unfortunate that “anarchism” has become appropriated as a fashion statement and excuse for mayhem. But that’s hardly the fault of real anarchists.]
federal law always trumps state law
That is simply untrue. In fact, federal law pre-empts state law only in very specific areas. Most significantly, federal courts — in contrast to state courts — have limited jurisdiction, extending only to those matters specifically designated under the Constitution. An ordinary criminal prosecution — however heinous the crime — is definitely not within the scope of federal jurisdiction, nor an area in which federal law pre-empts state law.
Josh Wolfe is no more a “journalist” than I am or anybody else with a camcorder and a will to use it: hence, he does not deserve press immunity.
Josh Wolf may or may not be a “journalist” entitled to protection under the California shield law. He does not become a “non-journalist” merely because someone keeps saying so (any more than bad arguments become “rational” simply because the speaker asserts as much). That’s for a court, interpreting and applying the law as enacted, to decide.
If ANYBODY gets smashed in the head with a rock (anarchist, cop, butcher, baker, candlestick maker), the legal system is obliged to find the culprit–even from a camcorder-wielding anarchist sympathizer.
Yes, of course. But the legal system may properly do so only within the bounds set forth by the law. The legal system, for example, could not beat the camcorder-wielding anarchist sympathizer into submission, could not search his home without a warrant based on probable cause, and could not compel him to turn over his videotapes if he is covered by the shield law.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“First, as a previous commenter mentioned, Wolf has declared, in court, that he has no footage of the assault, and offered to provide his tape for an in camera examination by the judge to prove as much. The judge, for whatever reason, declined.”
Again, think of the precedent. A grand jury subpeonas evidence. The owner of that evidence refuses the order, but says he will show it to the judge PRIVATELY. This is nonsense. Really. Why not just hand it over and prove once and for all that you have nothing on film against your anarchist buddies?
“Finally, there were, presumably, numerous witnesses to the assault. Not all of them were “anarchists”[*] or their sympathizers. Certainly the victim of the assault would himself be a competent and credible witness. It is difficult to imagine that the perpetrator in this case would not have been convicted in any court.”
Yes, and not one of them stepped forward with evidence. So that tape might help, don’t you think?
As for shield laws, he would likely not fall under the protection of shield law on two grounds: first that his freelance status (part-time blogger) and anarchist sympathies preclude him from being defined as a journalist (in this instance). Second, a federal prosecutor and a federal judge have ruled that his evidence is needed and cannot be obtained any other way.
I’m glad you share my simpathy for EVERYONE who has had her head bashed in with a rock.
But remember this: the day after the melee, Wolf called himself on his videoblog an “artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist.” He does not work for a news organization. He does not answer to editors who fact-check. I have to keep bringing up this point that he isn’t a journalist. Granted, a definitive description would be problematic, but I think Wolf clearly falls outside the realm.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
P.S. What’s the deal with anarchists, anyway?
They always start their demonstrations in the Financial District and end them in the Mission, where they destroy stores operated by working-class people. I mean, shouldn’t they be doing just the opposite?