Josh Wolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

For other persons named Josh Wolf, see Josh Wolf (disambiguation).

Joshua Wolf (born June 8, 1982) is an American video blogger, freelance journalist and filmmaker^[1] who was jailed by a Federal district court on August 1, 2006 for refusing to turn over a collection of videotapes he recorded during a July 2005 demonstration in San Francisco, California. Wolf served 226 days in prison at the Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin, California, longer than any journalist in U.S. history has served for protecting source materials^[2]. With permission from the prosecution, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered Wolf's release on April 3, 2007^[3].

1 Biography
2 The video
3 Subpoena and arrest
4 Release
5 Central legal issues
6 Responses
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links

[edit] Biography

Josh Wolf is a 2000 graduate of Serrano High School in Phelan, California, who went on to graduate from San Francisco State University in May 2006, with a degree in psychology.

[edit] The video

Wolf, a video activist who reported on numerous protest and progressive events, videotaped an anti-G8 anarchist protest in San Francisco on July 8, 2005 in which the protesters wore masks to hide their identities. Later that same night, and over the next few days, Wolf posted edited clips of his video to a local activist news website, Bay Area Indymedia (Indybay). Wolf also sold some video to a television broadcast station (KRON) the day after the protest. In the process of documenting protest actions, Wolf had recorded a tense scene of a protester being choked by a police officer and other officers threatening passers-by with stun guns. The only other recording that was broadcast nearly as much was a still photograph of a bloody police officer who was injured during the protest, not taken by Wolf. Other activists who posted video and photographs to the Bay Area Indymedia website were contacted by the FBI seeking their original source materials, but it is unknown how many, if any, turned over their recordings to Federal authorities. Wolf's videotape is the only known source material from the protest to have been sought by subpoena after refusal to turn it over. On April 3, 2007, Wolf posted the unpublished footage on his blog^[4] after being assured that he would not have to testify about the footage^[5].

[edit] Subpoena and arrest

The US District Court empaneled a grand jury to determine whether arson charges should be brought against some of the protesters on the suspicion that they may have intended to damage a police car by firing a bottle rocket under it, even though the only official damage reported was to a tail light. The premise for Federal intervention in a case involving a city police car was that the car was funded in part by Federal dollars. Although he did not shoot footage of the car incident, because Wolf shot other video footage during the protest, and the identities of some of the protesters were allegedly known to him, Wolf was targeted by Federal officials. Wolf was subpoenaed by the court, requiring him to turn over the footage to the grand jury. Specifically, the FBI subpoenaed him to provide "all documents, writings and recordings related to protest activities conducted in San Francisco" between 6:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on July 8 as well any cameras, recording devices, and his computer.

Wolf refused to comply with the subpoena. His case was picked up by the National Lawyers Guild who asked a federal magistrate in San Francisco to block the grand jury subpoena, arguing that taking such action would have a chilling effect on other journalists covering future protests. U.S. District Judge William Alsup rejected this argument and ordered Wolf be jailed on August 1, 2006 for contempt of court until he complied.

A federal appeals court granted him bail on August 31, 2006 and he was released on September 1, although Wolf again refused to comply with the district court order that he produce the videotape. On September 18, 2006 his bail was revoked and Wolf returned to prison on September 22, 2006. The entire en banc Court of Appeals refused Wolf's subsequent appeals.

February 7, 2007 marked the 169th day of Wolf's imprisonment, surpassing the time served by Vanessa Leggett, a Houston-based freelancer who was imprisoned for 168 days in 2001 and 2002 for declining to reveal unpublished material about a murder case. Wolf remained in jail for a total of 226 days, the longest time a U.S. journalist has been held in contempt for refusing to divulge privileged material.

[edit] Release

On April 3, 2007, according to Wolf's lawyer David Greene, prosecutors dropped their insistence that Wolf testify before a grand jury after he posted the unaired video online. With permission from the prosecution, U.S. District Judge William Alsup signed an order requiring Wolf's release from the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California.^[6].

[edit] Central legal issues

There are a number of important legal issues at dispute in this case, including:

whether or not journalists can refuse to comply with grand jury subpoenas, and under what circumstances
whether or not Wolf meets the legal definition of a journalist and is entitled to those protections
whether or not the Federal government has standing in this case

Wolf argues that first amendment protections allow journalists to refuse to comply when a grand jury is not conducted in good faith. Specifically, Wolf believes that the government wants his video tapes to help them identify people who were participating in the protests, not for actual footage of a crime that was committed. He has also argued that the federal prosecutor's claim for standing is tenuous (based on the fact that federal funds helped to pay for a police car that was damaged), and that the case was brought before a federal grand jury in order to avoid California's shield laws. There is no Federal Shield Law at this time.

The Federal prosecutor argues that Wolf does not meet the statutory definition of a journalist (under California law) or a common law journalist's privilege based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Further, they argue that even if he did, the protections afforded to journalists would not cover his activities in this case because he merely observed the incidents he recorded in a public place. He did not prompt them, nor did he offer anyone anonymity or confidentiality.

In their written ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Wolf on all three issues.

[edit] Responses

Questions of Wolf's legitimacy as a journalist have been answered by support from various journalist groups. For example, In 2006, The Society of Professional Journalists awarded Josh Wolf with a Journalist of the Year award "for upholding the principles of a free and independent press." Support in the journalistic community is not uniform, however. On February 28, 2007, syndicated columnist Debra Saunders attacked the credibility of Wolf's arguments, namely the lack of an expectation of privacy of those he was filming.

In a televised interview on February 9, 2007, Wolf and his attorney, Martin Garbus, responded to the question of the legitimacy of federal involvement, by claiming that the legal efforts against Wolf were part of a broader attempt by the government to learn the identity of people within the video who are critical of the Bush administration and to suppress American journalism at large.

Wolf stated during his portion of the interview via phone from prison that he has offered to allow the judge to review "in camera" the raw footage to determine if there's any applicable evidence within the video and the U.S. Attorney's office refused the offer based on a legal technicality. Wolf also said that the raw video doesn't offer any more applicable evidence of the arson or assault charges.

The U.S. Attorney's office declined to participate in the interview but a spokesperson sent a statement saying they were obligated to gather evidence and that six separate judges have "... ruled that this office has issued a lawful subpoena for legitimate investigative purposes ...".