Comments on: A blogger behind bars http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:40:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Wilford Osako http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-450619 Wilford Osako Sat, 28 May 2011 02:40:23 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-450619 I am just hoping to prepare a novel however , not one thing is coming to me. I frequently come up empty, how should you defeat writers-block? I am just hoping to prepare a novel however , not one thing is coming to me. I frequently come up empty, how should you defeat writers-block?

]]> By: Josh Wolf And What Is A Citizen Journalist? « Newscoma http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-346857 Josh Wolf And What Is A Citizen Journalist? « Newscoma Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:11:26 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-346857 [...] Is Josh Wolf a journalist, some people say no, others say yes like Jeff Jarvis who wrote a very indepth break down last August as well (Hobbs has it up too) and says this as some food for thought: And what are the [...] [...] Is Josh Wolf a journalist, some people say no, others say yes like Jeff Jarvis who wrote a very indepth break down last August as well (Hobbs has it up too) and says this as some food for thought: And what are the [...]

]]> By: Le Blogueur » Activiste emprisonné et blogueur mafieux http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-203846 Le Blogueur » Activiste emprisonné et blogueur mafieux Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:37:47 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-203846 [...] Au delà de ce cas précis, qui semble relever d’un juge inflexible qui se bat pour le principe, et punit ainsi quelqu’un qui refuse de “témoigner”, il y a une vraie question, elle aussi, de principe. Elle est un peu provocante, on la pose dans une conversation, plus rarement publiquement sur son blog, ou dans un article. Jeff Jarvis, lui, n’a pas hésité à la lancer la polémique l’été dernier : “But what is to stop any witness to a crime from blogging and claiming to be a journalist, cutting off prosecutors from evidence needed to try criminals? Yes, what would stop Tony Soprano from blogging to claim the shield: ‘I’m what you call a citizen journalist. You godda problem wid dat?’” [...] [...] Au delà de ce cas précis, qui semble relever d’un juge inflexible qui se bat pour le principe, et punit ainsi quelqu’un qui refuse de “témoigner”, il y a une vraie question, elle aussi, de principe. Elle est un peu provocante, on la pose dans une conversation, plus rarement publiquement sur son blog, ou dans un article. Jeff Jarvis, lui, n’a pas hésité à la lancer la polémique l’été dernier : “But what is to stop any witness to a crime from blogging and claiming to be a journalist, cutting off prosecutors from evidence needed to try criminals? Yes, what would stop Tony Soprano from blogging to claim the shield: ‘I’m what you call a citizen journalist. You godda problem wid dat?’” [...]

]]> By: Jikomboe » Wikimania + Mwanablogu jela! http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-102739 Jikomboe » Wikimania + Mwanablogu jela! Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:09:32 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-102739 [...] Wakati naelekea kwenye mkutano wa jumuiya ya wana Wikipedia, Wikimania (bonyeza hapa usome nilipouzungumzia mkutano huo huko nyuma [hivi kuna aliyeomba zile skolashipu?]), tunaambiwa kuwa mwanablogu wa video mwenye umri wa miaka 24 katiwa lupango kwa kukataa kutoa mikanda ya video. Soma habari hiyo katika viungo vifuatavyo: hapa, hapa, na hapa. [...] [...] Wakati naelekea kwenye mkutano wa jumuiya ya wana Wikipedia, Wikimania (bonyeza hapa usome nilipouzungumzia mkutano huo huko nyuma [hivi kuna aliyeomba zile skolashipu?]), tunaambiwa kuwa mwanablogu wa video mwenye umri wa miaka 24 katiwa lupango kwa kukataa kutoa mikanda ya video. Soma habari hiyo katika viungo vifuatavyo: hapa, hapa, na hapa. [...]

]]> By: Alan Kellogg http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-102727 Alan Kellogg Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:31:54 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-102727 Thanks to Steve Herman another consideration arises. Can a person at a public event, speaking in public, have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I'd say no, he doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. He's in public for crying out loud. However, thanks to some ill considered legal decisions people have come to expect privacy even when they are in full view of the whole damn world. Privacy comes not when you demand it, but when you take the steps necessary to ensure no one can hear what you're saying other than your intended audience. In your house, that's private. On the street? That's not private. Remember, it's the <i>reasonable</i> expectation of privacy. Josh interviewed people on the street, then those interviews are public and cannot be held in confidence I blame the Fox Network. Thanks to Steve Herman another consideration arises. Can a person at a public event, speaking in public, have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I’d say no, he doesn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy. He’s in public for crying out loud. However, thanks to some ill considered legal decisions people have come to expect privacy even when they are in full view of the whole damn world.

Privacy comes not when you demand it, but when you take the steps necessary to ensure no one can hear what you’re saying other than your intended audience. In your house, that’s private. On the street? That’s not private.

Remember, it’s the reasonable expectation of privacy. Josh interviewed people on the street, then those interviews are public and cannot be held in confidence

I blame the Fox Network.

]]> By: Austin http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-102678 Austin Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:37:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-102678 In response to Robert Feinman's comment above: This is an interesting question. In all of the examples you pose, no witnesses are coming forward <i>and</i> they cannot necessarily be identified. The blogger in question wrote about and distributed video of the event, thereby announcing - of his own free will - that he was a witness to the goings-on. It is possible that, under scrutiny, he won't have anyhting of value to add to the investigation. Our criminal justice system has the power to subpoena individuals and compel them to testify in court. I would suggest that this individual had a choice whether to write about or distribute a video of the event. By choosing to do so, he announced to the world that he was present and <i>may have witnessed</i> a crime. Therefore, he has no reason not to appear before the grand jury and should be held in contempt if he does not. I have not seen how compelling this individual to testify about something he was an eyewitness to and, moreover, openly proclaimed he was an eyewitness to, damages his journalistic integrity or journalism as a whole. Whistleblowers are usually people trying to right a wrong but want to do so without broadcasting what they know or what they are doing to the entire world in fear of retaliation. When you're selling your videos and writing about something online, you're obviously not trying very hard to keep things quiet or stay out of the public eye - you're intentionally doing the opposite. Austin In response to Robert Feinman’s comment above:

This is an interesting question. In all of the examples you pose, no witnesses are coming forward and they cannot necessarily be identified.

The blogger in question wrote about and distributed video of the event, thereby announcing – of his own free will – that he was a witness to the goings-on. It is possible that, under scrutiny, he won’t have anyhting of value to add to the investigation.

Our criminal justice system has the power to subpoena individuals and compel them to testify in court.

I would suggest that this individual had a choice whether to write about or distribute a video of the event. By choosing to do so, he announced to the world that he was present and may have witnessed a crime. Therefore, he has no reason not to appear before the grand jury and should be held in contempt if he does not. I have not seen how compelling this individual to testify about something he was an eyewitness to and, moreover, openly proclaimed he was an eyewitness to, damages his journalistic integrity or journalism as a whole.

Whistleblowers are usually people trying to right a wrong but want to do so without broadcasting what they know or what they are doing to the entire world in fear of retaliation. When you’re selling your videos and writing about something online, you’re obviously not trying very hard to keep things quiet or stay out of the public eye – you’re intentionally doing the opposite.

Austin

]]> By: Jonny Goldstein http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-102563 Jonny Goldstein Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:40:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-102563 The journalist status is relevant if on appeal the court finds that there is no federal jurisdiction, since California has a state shield law that allows journo the right to not give unpublished material up. And the claim for federal jurisdiction seems questionable in this case. To clarify, I'm not a friend of Josh's. I met him once at a convention. I have no special way to get him a message. Based on what I've read so far, I support him in his efforts to maintain possession of his unpubished material under California state law. I don't think this should be a federal case. I guess the lawyers will have to work this one out. The journalist status is relevant if on appeal the court finds that there is no federal jurisdiction, since California has a state shield law that allows journo the right to not give unpublished material up. And the claim for federal jurisdiction seems questionable in this case.

To clarify, I’m not a friend of Josh’s. I met him once at a convention. I have no special way to get him a message. Based on what I’ve read so far, I support him in his efforts to maintain possession of his unpubished material under California state law. I don’t think this should be a federal case. I guess the lawyers will have to work this one out.

]]> By: Bill Hobbs http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-102539 Bill Hobbs Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:54:15 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-102539 As I said in a lengthy post on my blog, Wolf appears to be claiming "journalistic privilege" in order to protect his ideological friends, rather than to protect "sources." <i>freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf, 24, is asserting he has a right as a journalist to protect his sources. I'd agree with him on that. But video isn't "sources." It's video. I think he should turn it over. ... The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Wolf "describes himself on his Web site as an activist and anarchist." In other words, Wolf isn't really a "freelance journalist and blogger" trying to protect his sources - he's trying to protect his fellow anarchists. ... Jeff Jarvis explores the ramifications of the Wolf case, though he blindly accepts that Wolf is a "journalist" trying to protect his sources rather than an anarchist trying to protect his friends. In essence, Wolf shot video of his ideological friends committing possible crimes, and now is claiming to have a journalists' right to conceal the evidence.</i> Read the whole thing here: http://billhobbs.com/2006/08/blogger_jailed_for_refusing.html And read good comments here: http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/archives/2006/08/not_a_source.html As I said in a lengthy post on my blog, Wolf appears to be claiming “journalistic privilege” in order to protect his ideological friends, rather than to protect “sources.”

freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf, 24, is asserting he has a right as a journalist to protect his sources. I’d agree with him on that. But video isn’t “sources.” It’s video. I think he should turn it over.
…
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Wolf “describes himself on his Web site as an activist and anarchist.”

In other words, Wolf isn’t really a “freelance journalist and blogger” trying to protect his sources – he’s trying to protect his fellow anarchists.
…
Jeff Jarvis explores the ramifications of the Wolf case, though he blindly accepts that Wolf is a “journalist” trying to protect his sources rather than an anarchist trying to protect his friends. In essence, Wolf shot video of his ideological friends committing possible crimes, and now is claiming to have a journalists’ right to conceal the evidence.

Read the whole thing here:
http://billhobbs.com/2006/08/blogger_jailed_for_refusing.html

And read good comments here:
http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/archives/2006/08/not_a_source.html

]]> By: Steve Herman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-102521 Steve Herman Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:05:00 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-102521 I tend to agree with Mr. Kellogg, but it depends what is on the tape. If there is just raw footage of an incident, it's nothing more than "evidence" (which can obviously be subpoenaed, etc). If, at some point, he interviews a witness who requests and is granted anonymity, then that part of the tape could, perhaps, be claimed as "privileged". (Incidentally, there is some interesting discussion of the Valerie Plame affair, on a lightly different note, on www.gravierhouse.com. But, in any event:) If I were the Judge, I would compel him to submit the tape to a Special Master, Under Seal, bound by confidentiality, etc., to review the tape and issue a report. This is what happens with attorney-client material all of the time. To the extent journalists have a privilege, (and I think they should - whether "bloggers" or not, as long as what they are practicing is truly "journalism"), I don't see why it should be any stronger than the attorney-client privilege. I tend to agree with Mr. Kellogg, but it depends what is on the tape. If there is just raw footage of an incident, it’s nothing more than “evidence” (which can obviously be subpoenaed, etc). If, at some point, he interviews a witness who requests and is granted anonymity, then that part of the tape could, perhaps, be claimed as “privileged”. (Incidentally, there is some interesting discussion of the Valerie Plame affair, on a lightly different note, on http://www.gravierhouse.com. But, in any event:) If I were the Judge, I would compel him to submit the tape to a Special Master, Under Seal, bound by confidentiality, etc., to review the tape and issue a report. This is what happens with attorney-client material all of the time. To the extent journalists have a privilege, (and I think they should – whether “bloggers” or not, as long as what they are practicing is truly “journalism”), I don’t see why it should be any stronger than the attorney-client privilege.

]]> By: Alan Kellogg http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-102380 Alan Kellogg Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:02:53 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-102380 Frankly, Josh's status as a journalist is not relevant here. In this case Josh has no sources to protect, he's just being a mule. He's also intervering with an investigation and needs to cut it out. If you're a friend of Josh, please pass this message on... Josh, if you were a kid of mine, I'd whack you upside the head with a clue stick and tell you to get some sense. You're defending no one and upholding nothing. All the police want is the video you shot. If there happens to be people on the video you'd rather the police didn't see, then you shouldn't have made footage from the video available for sale. Either all of a record is privileged, or none of it is. So stop being such a cat. Frankly, Josh’s status as a journalist is not relevant here. In this case Josh has no sources to protect, he’s just being a mule. He’s also intervering with an investigation and needs to cut it out.

If you’re a friend of Josh, please pass this message on…

Josh, if you were a kid of mine, I’d whack you upside the head with a clue stick and tell you to get some sense. You’re defending no one and upholding nothing. All the police want is the video you shot. If there happens to be people on the video you’d rather the police didn’t see, then you shouldn’t have made footage from the video available for sale. Either all of a record is privileged, or none of it is. So stop being such a cat.

]]> By: Jonny Goldstein http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101897 Jonny Goldstein Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:13:14 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101897 Whatever the legal and moral questions here, I think it's safe to say Josh can be designated a journalist. He's just out of college, and while he was there he wrote for the student newspaper. Since graduating in addition to his blogging and vlogging, he has sold footage to MSM outlets and published articles for the Haight Ashbury Beat (yeah I hear you snickering, but it looks like a legit community paper). The SF Chronicle and the NY Times both label him a journalist in recent articles. Although there's no official designation of who is a journo, by an reasonable standard, it seems to me Josh qualifies. It might be a tougher call if he was just a guy with a blog who wrote about what kind of cereal he had for breakfast, but that's not what he is. For the record, I met Josh at Vloggercon 2006 and he seemed like an earnest, idealistic, nice guy. Not that that is required to be designated a journalist... Whatever the legal and moral questions here, I think it’s safe to say Josh can be designated a journalist. He’s just out of college, and while he was there he wrote for the student newspaper. Since graduating in addition to his blogging and vlogging, he has sold footage to MSM outlets and published articles for the Haight Ashbury Beat (yeah I hear you snickering, but it looks like a legit community paper). The SF Chronicle and the NY Times both label him a journalist in recent articles. Although there’s no official designation of who is a journo, by an reasonable standard, it seems to me Josh qualifies. It might be a tougher call if he was just a guy with a blog who wrote about what kind of cereal he had for breakfast, but that’s not what he is.

For the record, I met Josh at Vloggercon 2006 and he seemed like an earnest, idealistic, nice guy. Not that that is required to be designated a journalist…

]]> By: LanceThruster http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101883 LanceThruster Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:57:43 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101883 Despite my strong disagreements with Jeff on the Israel question (and I'm still chaffing at his anti-Semitism insinuations - or were they outright accusations?), I very much like the tone of this one in that these are difficult questions and any given answer brings forth its own set of problems. I think the comment regarding when is someone compelled to testify gets to the crux of the problem. Despite my strong disagreements with Jeff on the Israel question (and I’m still chaffing at his anti-Semitism insinuations – or were they outright accusations?), I very much like the tone of this one in that these are difficult questions and any given answer brings forth its own set of problems.

I think the comment regarding when is someone compelled to testify gets to the crux of the problem.

]]> By: sonitus.org » Blog Archive » A blogger behind bars http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101722 sonitus.org » Blog Archive » A blogger behind bars Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:20:22 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101722 [...] BuzzMachine [...] [...] BuzzMachine [...]

]]> By: Robert Feinman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101721 Robert Feinman Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:20:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101721 Should witnesses be <b>compelled</b> to testify? If this is the case then everyone who sees an auto accident and doesn't stop and identify themselves is now a potential felon? How about people in businesses or government who are aware of something shady going on? Even if the crime is undetected have they an obligation to step forward and identify themselves as witnesses? What if, as is commonly the case, being a whistleblower will cause them harm? The fact is that this area of law has never been properly settled and there is probably a good reason for this. There are just too many circumstances for a one-size-fits-all rule. Should witnesses be compelled to testify?

If this is the case then everyone who sees an auto accident and doesn’t stop and identify themselves is now a potential felon?

How about people in businesses or government who are aware of something shady going on? Even if the crime is undetected have they an obligation to step forward and identify themselves as witnesses? What if, as is commonly the case, being a whistleblower will cause them harm?

The fact is that this area of law has never been properly settled and there is probably a good reason for this. There are just too many circumstances for a one-size-fits-all rule.

]]> By: Nill of Rights -- Chip’s Quips http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101719 Nill of Rights -- Chip’s Quips Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:15:23 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101719 [...] Jeff Jarvis raises some interesting questions about journalistic rights and how they apply to bloggers and other citizens. This comes after 24-year old blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned for refusing to testify and hand over to prosecutors his video of a San Francisco protest, claiming that the video is his private journalistic source material — begging once again the question of what constitutes a journalist. [...] [...] Jeff Jarvis raises some interesting questions about journalistic rights and how they apply to bloggers and other citizens. This comes after 24-year old blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned for refusing to testify and hand over to prosecutors his video of a San Francisco protest, claiming that the video is his private journalistic source material — begging once again the question of what constitutes a journalist. [...]

]]> By: Shawn Levasseur http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101705 Shawn Levasseur Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:56:28 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101705 I'm with Austin on this one, this isn't even a case of a guy protecting any sources. No concern that future contacts will be scared away. The theory behind shield laws is that they exist so that journalists can talk to sources confidentially. If the reporter's access to the information in this case was merely the fact that he was there and running his camera, what's the harm to journalism if he testifies? If he was there because someone told him that some criminal activity was going to happen, then I think this guy deserves to be treated as an accomplice, not a journalist. Even Lawyer/Client privileges are null and void when the client is about to commit a crime. I guess I've stumbled upon the line that should be drawn on Shield Laws (though I disagree with the idea of special rights for journalists in general). If you get information about a crime before it happens, one must testify. After the fact, the shield law kicks in. Then again that line doesn't handle the situation where the crime is the leaking of information, and the leak is the source being protected AND the crime being investigated. I’m with Austin on this one, this isn’t even a case of a guy protecting any sources. No concern that future contacts will be scared away.

The theory behind shield laws is that they exist so that journalists can talk to sources confidentially. If the reporter’s access to the information in this case was merely the fact that he was there and running his camera, what’s the harm to journalism if he testifies?

If he was there because someone told him that some criminal activity was going to happen, then I think this guy deserves to be treated as an accomplice, not a journalist. Even Lawyer/Client privileges are null and void when the client is about to commit a crime.

I guess I’ve stumbled upon the line that should be drawn on Shield Laws (though I disagree with the idea of special rights for journalists in general). If you get information about a crime before it happens, one must testify. After the fact, the shield law kicks in.

Then again that line doesn’t handle the situation where the crime is the leaking of information, and the leak is the source being protected AND the crime being investigated.

]]> By: Austin http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101684 Austin Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:23:49 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101684 Jeff, Since the blogger in question is an eye witness, was the very person who shot the video, and openly wrote about the subject and distributed the video to other media, why would he refuse to testify in front of a Grand Jury? By engaging in networked journalism isn't he "testifying" in another way anyhow? What purpose is served by not testifying if he, in fact, may have witnessed a crime? Now, on the other hand, if he was not an eye witness, did not shoot the video himself, and was reporting based on interviews that he conducted where his sources demanded anonymity in exchange for their point-of-view, I could understand. If a journalist witnessed a murder, writes about it, and refuses to testify at trial - he/she should be jailed for contempt. If a journalist is covering a story and interviews different people who may or may not have a criminal involvement, he/she should not be held in contempt for not revealing their sources. Journalists are not police officers or detectives and should not be compelled to do their work for them. I guess to me the difference to me is that when a journalist is an eye witness, they are fair game to have testify at a criminal proceeding - like all of us other citizens are. When they are merely reporting a story and not eye witnesses to a crime, it is more than likely that the police will eventually have all of the same access to the sources that the journalist and, therefore, don't need the journalist to hand them over (although that may seem the easier route for law enforcement). I'm sure that I am missing many angles, but that's my take on your article. Austin P.S. - With regard to Steve Clancy's comment above. Mr. Cruz's picture-taking was not actually interfering with the police's ability to conduct the arrest, unless of course, they can prove that he was trying use the pictures to alert other possible suspects. In that case, he's toast, and should be. Jeff,
Since the blogger in question is an eye witness, was the very person who shot the video, and openly wrote about the subject and distributed the video to other media, why would he refuse to testify in front of a Grand Jury?
By engaging in networked journalism isn’t he “testifying” in another way anyhow? What purpose is served by not testifying if he, in fact, may have witnessed a crime?
Now, on the other hand, if he was not an eye witness, did not shoot the video himself, and was reporting based on interviews that he conducted where his sources demanded anonymity in exchange for their point-of-view, I could understand.
If a journalist witnessed a murder, writes about it, and refuses to testify at trial – he/she should be jailed for contempt.
If a journalist is covering a story and interviews different people who may or may not have a criminal involvement, he/she should not be held in contempt for not revealing their sources. Journalists are not police officers or detectives and should not be compelled to do their work for them.
I guess to me the difference to me is that when a journalist is an eye witness, they are fair game to have testify at a criminal proceeding – like all of us other citizens are. When they are merely reporting a story and not eye witnesses to a crime, it is more than likely that the police will eventually have all of the same access to the sources that the journalist and, therefore, don’t need the journalist to hand them over (although that may seem the easier route for law enforcement).
I’m sure that I am missing many angles, but that’s my take on your article.

Austin

P.S. – With regard to Steve Clancy’s comment above. Mr. Cruz’s picture-taking was not actually interfering with the police’s ability to conduct the arrest, unless of course, they can prove that he was trying use the pictures to alert other possible suspects. In that case, he’s toast, and should be.

]]> By: Rich Drees http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101663 Rich Drees Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:03:37 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101663 I would think that the mere act of selling some of the footage to local stations would automatically define Wolf as a journalist, albeit a freelance one. I would think that the mere act of selling some of the footage to local stations would automatically define Wolf as a journalist, albeit a freelance one.

]]> By: A.J. Liebling http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101651 A.J. Liebling Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:50:00 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101651 re: "But what is to stop any witness to a crime from blogging and claiming to be a journalist, cutting off prosecutors from evidence needed to try criminals?" Of course it doesn't have to be crime, but more commonly, a civil suit. And these questions that had been raised months ago when these stories first hit the fan. (You didn't read the comment from "Rube" to your triumphalist Apple posting?) Glad you're aboard now. This is why people like the idea of "standards" and "norms"-- with privilege comes responsibility. Note that public journalism-- there are still some adherents around-- would say that a reporter serves society before the story. Incidentally, the appeals judge in the Apple v. Does case never referred to the defendents as bloggers in the ruling; he simply stated that what they were doing met the definition of journalism and Apple didn't prove otherwise. Of more concern to you he wrote: "we have avoided the term 'blog' here because of its rapidly evolving and currently amorphous meaning." Could be a first assignment come September. re:
“But what is to stop any witness to a crime from blogging and claiming to be a journalist, cutting off prosecutors from evidence needed to try criminals?”

Of course it doesn’t have to be crime, but more commonly, a civil suit. And these questions that had been raised months ago when these stories first hit the fan. (You didn’t read the comment from “Rube” to your triumphalist Apple posting?) Glad you’re aboard now. This is why people like the idea of “standards” and “norms”– with privilege comes responsibility.

Note that public journalism– there are still some adherents around– would say that a reporter serves society before the story.

Incidentally, the appeals judge in the Apple v. Does case never referred to the defendents as bloggers in the ruling; he simply stated that what they were doing met the definition of journalism and Apple didn’t prove otherwise. Of more concern to you he wrote: “we have avoided the term
‘blog’ here because of its rapidly evolving and currently amorphous meaning.”

Could be a first assignment come September.

]]> By: Steve Clancy http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101642 Steve Clancy Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:35:42 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101642 Saw this on digg the other day. http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Apparently police arrested a guy for taking pictures of an arrest on his cellphone. It's sort of related to the laws of networked journalism. Saw this on digg the other day. http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Apparently police arrested a guy for taking pictures of an arrest on his cellphone. It’s sort of related to the laws of networked journalism.

]]> By: Michael Tippett http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101638 Michael Tippett Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:30:58 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101638 We had a report about this earlier on <a href="http://www.nowpublic.com/video_journalist_jailed_in_san_franciso" rel="nofollow">NowPublic</a>. Josh has been a member of the site for some time. We had a report about this earlier on NowPublic. Josh has been a member of the site for some time.

]]> By: Dream On ! http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/02/a-blogger-behind-bars/#comment-101630 Dream On ! Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:08:15 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1842#comment-101630 <strong>Blogger jailed by US federal court</strong> The New York Times reports today what may be the first case of a blogger jailed by a US federal court for not handing over sources or source materials for a story - a case that will raise no end of questions about the rights, responsibilities, and prot... Blogger jailed by US federal court

The New York Times reports today what may be the first case of a blogger jailed by a US federal court for not handing over sources or source materials for a story – a case that will raise no end of questions about the rights, responsibilities, and prot…

]]>