DIY journalist once again a free man
Crusading blogger and DIY journalist Josh Wolf is out of the hoosegow after 7 1/2 months as a guest of the federal government. He was jailed for contempt of court last August for defying a federal grand jury subpoena. The grand jury sought unpublished video footage and his testimony about a 2005 political protest during which a policeman was injured and an arson attempt was made on a police car.
In the agreement that secured his release, Wolf surrendered footage that he'd taken of the protest -- footage he'd offered to the court since the beginning of the ordeal -- and was excused from testifying about the people and events of the protest.
Wolf's record-setting imprisonment hinged largely on questions over his status as a journalist. Prosecutors argued that Wolf was not entitled to the consideration extended to journalists, even in the absence of a formal federal shield law, because he didn't work for a recognized news organization. Wolf's attorneys, and press organizations that rallied to his side, countered that Wolf works as a journalist and should be entitled to legal protections that come with that status.
As happy as I am that Wolf is out of prison, and as impressed as I am by his courage, I'm less convinced by the whole yes-he-is/no-he-isn't debate over his professional status. I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that reporters, by dint of their chosen occupations, are entitled to some special legal protections denied the rest of us amateur users of the First Amendment. Shield laws create a privileged class of people, and necessarily set the stage for battles over who should enjoy the government's recognition as a member of that class.
As the Wolf case demonstrates, those battles are destined to hinge on increasingly obscure points in an age when anybody with a computer and an entrepreneurial streak can reach a world-wide audience. The line separating Josh Wolf from Dan Rather gets fuzzier everyday -- and I don't think we want government bureaucrats determining who falls on which side.
The solution, as I see it, is to extend the same protections to everybody who acts in a journalistic capacity in any given situation. These days, anybody can be a member of the press, and the law should recognize that fact. Yes, that still creates scenarios in which courts will have to determine whether people are acting as journalists, but I think assessments of people's actions are subject to more objective review than determinations of their status. People employed by media organizations will probably enjoy an assumption that they act as members of the press, while the rest of us can also enjoy journalistic protections when we engage in appropriate conduct.
Those are my thoughts, anyway. What do you say?
In the agreement that secured his release, Wolf surrendered footage that he'd taken of the protest -- footage he'd offered to the court since the beginning of the ordeal -- and was excused from testifying about the people and events of the protest.
Wolf's record-setting imprisonment hinged largely on questions over his status as a journalist. Prosecutors argued that Wolf was not entitled to the consideration extended to journalists, even in the absence of a formal federal shield law, because he didn't work for a recognized news organization. Wolf's attorneys, and press organizations that rallied to his side, countered that Wolf works as a journalist and should be entitled to legal protections that come with that status.
As happy as I am that Wolf is out of prison, and as impressed as I am by his courage, I'm less convinced by the whole yes-he-is/no-he-isn't debate over his professional status. I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that reporters, by dint of their chosen occupations, are entitled to some special legal protections denied the rest of us amateur users of the First Amendment. Shield laws create a privileged class of people, and necessarily set the stage for battles over who should enjoy the government's recognition as a member of that class.
As the Wolf case demonstrates, those battles are destined to hinge on increasingly obscure points in an age when anybody with a computer and an entrepreneurial streak can reach a world-wide audience. The line separating Josh Wolf from Dan Rather gets fuzzier everyday -- and I don't think we want government bureaucrats determining who falls on which side.
The solution, as I see it, is to extend the same protections to everybody who acts in a journalistic capacity in any given situation. These days, anybody can be a member of the press, and the law should recognize that fact. Yes, that still creates scenarios in which courts will have to determine whether people are acting as journalists, but I think assessments of people's actions are subject to more objective review than determinations of their status. People employed by media organizations will probably enjoy an assumption that they act as members of the press, while the rest of us can also enjoy journalistic protections when we engage in appropriate conduct.
Those are my thoughts, anyway. What do you say?
Labels: free speech
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
8:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home