Freedomedia

In your October column, Ethics: We Need to Talk…, you implicitly suggested that I should be protected from having to testify and provide my unpublished material, if and only if, I am a “professional journalist”. While I certainly understand your argument that a reporter’s privilege “must be very narrowly applied or the justice system would collapse”, I cannot help but feel the criterion you’ve proposed is inherently flawed.

At best, the suggestion of narrowly defining who qualifies as a protected journalist will result in an elite class of professionals who work for mainstream media outlets, while reporters for the alternative
press would be given no choice, but to practice their craft without a net. More likely, I anticipate that this approach would establish a state-sanctioned journalist license, and anyone would be subject to
having her license revoked should she stray from the party line. At worst, independent voices could be subject to prosecution for practicing journalism without a license.

The First Amendment was not written to protect the Hearst Corporation and its thousands of employees, although it certainly should. When the founding fathers set out to guarantee a free press they really did seek to protect independent journalists and pamphleteers, such as Thomas Paine and his “Common Sense”.

The problem with only protecting “professionals”, while denying these protections to those who do not rely on their reportage to support themselves financially is two-fold. For one, students of journalism must be protected-if they are not, they will be denied the opportunity to engage in serious news gathering during their education and thus
unprepared to enter the field as professionals. Secondly, if independents are denied these protections, then who will report on mainstream journalists who abuse their professional standing?

What about the stories that are ignored or neglected by the mainstream media? Are those issues really not worthy of coverage simply because the established media has deemed them unfit for airtime? If it is
important that these stories are covered, then isn’t it also important that journalists investigating these stories be protected?

Who should be protected? As Jeff Jarvis mused previously, “Tony Soprano shouldn’t be able to insulate himself by simply creating a blog”, but I do feel that the mommy-blogger who happens to break a
story about a dishonest baby-food company should not be forced to out her confidential sources. In my opinion, anyone’s journalist activities should be protected whether or not he is paid for his work. After all, a journalist is supposedly a public servant and if he or she is working due to his or her own conscience and without financial compensation, how can this possibly invalidate him or her as a public servant?

But would this broad application to the journalist shield lead the justice system to collapse? I doubt it, but there is a more sensible approach to limiting these protections without establishing an exclusive class of protected journalists. By applying a balancing test between the need for law enforcement to obtain this information against the damage that would be inflicted to the rights of a free press, many of these cases can be resolved without the establishment of a state sanctioned press.

For example, in my case the federal government has asserted that a protester threw a firework in the vicinity of a police car four days after the Fourth of July. The US Attorney has argued that this was an
attempt to burn the San Francisco police vehicle and should therefore be a federal investigation, but according to the police report, the car did not burn. Despite the fact that I’ve stated for the record that
I neither filmed nor witnessed the alleged incident and despite the fact that we’ve offered to screen the complete footage for the judge, I am currently sitting in a federal prison cell for protecting my sources and
unpublished material.

If I were to submit to the government demands, then it would no longer be possible for sources to trust me with privileged information; I would be denied the unfettered access that I’ve been granted as a result
of establishing a trusted relationship with Bay Area activists, and I would thus be unable to fully report on civil dissent in the San Francisco region. Forcing me to comply with this subpoena would and has created
a chilling effect, which should be balanced against the federal government’s need to investigate the alleged crime that may have occurred and which resulted, if it even happened, in no significant
damage to the police vehicle that suffered a broken taillight.

         

On October 16th, Demian Bulwa at the San Francisco Chronicle published an article about my case. He wrote to me in prison and asked me what my impressions of his article were. What follows is the letter I sent him.

Dear Demian,

Thank you for sending me the article clipping and requesting my feedback. My only real complaint is the secondary headline, but I do realize that you likely had no say in that. By stating “Anarchist says he did not film attack on police officer,” I feel that the Chronicle does a disservice to its readers in two ways. For one, by shifting the subject to the injured officer, the headline neglects the fact that the subject of the grand jury investigation is the alleged attempted arson of an SFPD patrol vehicle and not the alleged assault.

This shift of focus to an injured member of the SFPD coupled with the term “anarchist” creates the impression that I am likely lying — which your own reportage describes as “an assertion that appears to be consistent with the police reports”. Furthermore, as I mentioned in our interview, we offered to screen the footage in-camera for Judge Alsop in an effort to verify, without a doubt, that I neither filmed the alleged assault nor the incident that is the subject of the Federal investigation.

Instead, the chosen headline evokes the assassination of William McKinley and other violent acts perpetuated by people who identified as anarchists. It sensationalizes the issue and suggests distrust where a more balanced headline would not.

Beyond the wording of the headline, I have few issues with the article you wrote. I feel that your choice of leads, “Blogger and anarchist…” is an attempt to sensationalize the issue, like the headline, and would be no more appropriate than pointing out that a journalist covering Palestine happens to identify as Muslim. This is especially true given that the word “anarchist” carries a diversity of meanings; it’s the sort of word I feel shouldn’t be used without a definition attached. To me, your syntax here demonstrates my thesis that there is an effort to demonize and discredit anarchism in much the same way as the campaign against communism throughout the Cold War.

The quotation you used from my blog is essentially accurate but may be taken somewhat out of context in that the “actions” referenced are the petty vandalism that occured and not the alleged assault of Officer Peter Shields. It is also important to keep in mind that the statement was made over a year ago, shortly after the demonstration occured.

Additionally, it seems worth mentioning that although FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler’s suggestion that there is “a huge difference [in finding potential witnesses] from a fishing expedition for anarchists” may be true; the one does not preclude the other. Nothing in the article attributed to the FBI suggests that the FBI is not using this excuse as an opportunity to simultaneously gather broad intelligence on those participating in civil dissent and those who identify as anarchists.

The only other matter that I feel needs to be clarified is that of my project, which will help facilitate prisoners to blog. I do not want to “create a blog for prisoners” but am instead working to develop an organization that will allow those incarcerated to create and maintain their own blogs; the difference is subtle but significant.

Although this letter may seem quite critical of your coverage, I’m actually quite impressed with the depth of your report and appreciate your efforts to utilize a broad spectrum of sources to establish a comprehensive picture of the issues involved.

I look forward to your furture coverage of this case and encourage you to respond to this correspondence. I have decided to post this letter to my blog alongside a link to your article. If you do have an opportunity to respond, please let me know what, if anything, I can post on my site and I will gladly respect what you request.

Thanks again for the coverage,

Josh

         

Vote for Jane Kim for San Francisco School Board November 7, 2006.
Visit Jane Kim’s Site

         

A few weeks ago, just before I returned to FDC Dublin, I took a trip to New York and had the opportunity to witness the new airport security measures in action. In what could be the most idiotic government policy yet, I was reprimanded as I stepped onto the plane for carrying the large soda I had just purchased at a restaurant behind the security gates. It took me a minute to apologize for my confusion as I had just taken a swi of my suspect and possibly explosive soda. But, it’s important we protect ourselves against edible liquid explosives, right?

I doubt it. In fact I’m disincline to think that these new precautions are about making people safe so much as they are intended to make people scared and remind them of the government’s control. Well, that and a last ditch, hail-Mary attempt to maintain GOP control of the House and Senate through the upcoming election. But this entry isn’t about planes or politics. It’s about control under veil of security and what I experienced upon my return to Dublin.

You see, shortly after I left prison, a bit of an altercation broke out in the rec yard, which will henceforth be referred to as the “Tomato Riot” although the word riot is probably a bit presumptuous to describe ten to twelve guys punching each other in the face over the hoarding of a few cherry tomatoes. After the fight the entire unit found itself locked down for several days. When we were finally permitted to gather in the common area again, several new policies had been adopted under the auspices of maintaining security.

First off, nearly everyone involved in the Tomato Riot was promptly shipped out to other facilities and the few that weren’t were placed in solitary confinement where they still remain today. As such, none of these changes that have been implemented apply to anyone involved in the figh — just everyone else.

Prior to the fight, the prison offered a salad bar. Afterwards we were each given individual salads instead. Although this change does limit our access to salad, it also ensures that everyone will get their fair share of tomatoes. This change alone makes logical sense and it doesn’t really punish anyone except the dishwashing staff.

The other reforms that were implemented aren’t nearly so logical and are reminiscent of the “explosive” soda I almost carried on the plane. Instead of daily visits to the rec yard, the unit (which currently contains less than 50 guys) has been split into two groups, and now we’re only permitted fresh air every other day, excluding Saturday and Sunday when we are all kept inside all day.

Additionally, we’re no longer permitted to carry our AM/FM Walkmen onto the yard or even our plastic water mugs. After all, one can never be too careful about the threat of liquid explosives.

On the the surface, these new restrictions might not seem all that outlandish. After all, the Tomato Riot did go down on the rec yard, right? Well, yes, but keep in mind that the rec yard is no larger than the unit itself and is actually much easier to observe. Both facilities are monitored by a single guard with limited remote observation.

While the indoor unit has a plethora of hidden inlets and rows of cells that are completely obscured from view, there is nowhere to hide on the outdoor yard. Given this, there really is no security advantage to the new policy.

Even less sensible is our new bedtime — I mean — lockdown time. Whereas we were permitted to congregate an additional hour after the 8:45 count before the Tomato Riot, today we remain locked in our cells from 8:45 PM until the next morning. Clearly this reform has no relationship to maintaining security. No, the new schedule is nothing more than a biting example of collective punishment.

Now collective punishment might make some amount of sense in the armed forceds. After all, a chain really is as strong as its weakest link. But expecting inmates to police each other in prison is not only asinine: it borders on being dangerous.

Furthermore, those who were actually involved in the altercation aren’t even here anymore. So, in essence, all these new policies do nothing more than punish the innocent. I’m not saying they aren’t guilty of their charges; but for the most part their behavior at FDC Dublin has been exemplary and this is the thanks they get in return? To have the screws tightened just a bit tighter?

The only thing accomplished is that the prisoners are more irritated; the government gets to assert its power power’s sake; and Mr. Bill Kubitz, the Jail Administrator, is revealed for who he is. Now if only the American people could see the motivation behind the new airport security measures as clearly as the inmates perceive the aforementioned policies, then America might actually begin to wake up.

But alas, the words of the late Bill Hicks still ring true today: “Go back to sleep America. Your government is in control.”

         

Upon my return to Dublin I began talking to a guy named Jerry Robisson. He grew up in the Fillmore and is currently serving a two year sentence for a parole violation. Jerry approaches me wanting to discuss the rate of recidivism, or what is more commonly referred to as the revolving door in which convicts return again and again.

Jerry first started getting into trouble at the age of 13. He attributes his first skirmishes with the law to both peer pressure and growing up in a single parent household. When asked why he felt the need to associate with the so-called “wrong elements”, Jerry explained to me that it was a remedy for the alienation he felt and an opportunity to be accepted.

It wasn’t long before his habits of “getting high, stealing cars, and armed robbery” led him to become a frequent visitor to juvenile hall. He quickly adopted the attitude that if he didn’t have life, he was going to get out and it didn’t matter. In Jerry’s eyes, juvenile hall was little more than an opportunity to see his friends.

He doesn’t see things the same way today: “I need to be a positive role model for my two kids.” He senses the importance of a supportive school environment and told me that “without education you don’t have nothing. [You] don’t have the skills to get the good jobs to survive in these cities where the rent is high.”

When asked about possible solutions to the alarming recidivism, Jerry is quick to offer many suggestions which seem sensible and could prove effective. One of the first things he suggested was to create more after school programs and especially at the elementary levels. He’s quick to point out that it’s too late to really be effective by junior or senior high school and I’m inclined to agree. Another suggestion offered by Jerry is the implementation of mandatory parenting classes both in high school and prisons.

A more controversial suggestion put forth by Robisson is to establish funding for prisoners to become entrepreneurs upon their release and start their own small businesses. While this is certainly an unconventional approach, it’s importnat to keep in mind that many convicts in America were successful businessment in an illicit trade and only find themselves incarcerated after reaching such high levels of success. So why not give these ex-cons an opportunity to succeed in above ground business? Lots of reasons, I’m sure, but it’s something to consider.

         

Josh is well. He would like people to write to him, sohe wants to thank those who have been writing and he hopes that more of you will want to correspond with him. Those letters are a vital link to the outside world. Thank you also to those of you who have been using the Wiki site to donate books for him to read and to all of you who have donated and continue to donate to support all the expenses involved with this case. For those of you who would like to donate but don’t do paypal, you can send a check to me, Liz Wolf-Spada, PO Box 2235, Wrightwood, CA, 92397. I got behind on thank you notes for a long time, but am trying to catch up on that when I got checks in the mail. So, I’m thanking all the paypal donors here, as I’m not really that much of a paypal user myself. I just transfer the money to the bank account for these expenses. I’ll be going up to see Josh again on the 28th and 29th of October and passing out flyers about his case at my high school reunion on the 21st. The appeal to the 9th circuit will be filed this week so watch for publicity to accompany that from our great publicist, in New York, who has been so great to work with and I think will really get national publicity for this case. Thanks, Mahdis.

         

The news that the U.S. Attorney’s office was seeking to revoke my bail began circulating on September 11th, 2006: five years after you-know-what, a date that, according to a friend, is also known as “Patriot Day”. If there’s one thing the right and the left can agree upon, it’s that 9/11 changed the face of America. My own situation should be a testament to that.

One week later, schools throughout the nation were following through on their reponsibilities to observe Constitution Day as stipulated by Federal mandate. Ironically, it was this very day, September 18th, that I was notified that I would be returning to prison by the end of the week. Happy Constitution Day to you too!

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And yet, as a member of the press, I find my freedom curtailed significantly here in this Federal Detention Center; and, unfortunately, I am not the only one under the gun.

From the looks of things, it’s only just the beginning. A recent article in USA today (9/18/06) cited a statistic that left me terrified for our future. According to a survey of nearly 15,000 high school students, only 54% felt that “newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval.”

No, that wasn’t a typo, friends, over 40% of our high school students feel that the press should need governmental approval to publish the news! Not the sort of thing one wants to read while sitting in jail asserting my constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, in Staten Island, a man named Javed Iqbal found himself held in federal prison with $250,000 bail for simply providing his community with television programming that he harvested off the 8 satellite dishes that decorated his backyard. You see, one of the stations available through Iqbal is Ai Manar, a station controlled by Hezbollah and therein considered a terrorist entity.

The disturbing worlds put forth by the likes of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley have swiftly become reality, and judging by the study in USA Today, half of our young people couldn’t care less. The time to wake up has long since passed — quit hitting snooze and hope it’s not too late. Whatever you do, don’t succumb to the notion that you can’t make a difference — that’s just another form of cowardice. You can’t even fail if you don’t try, and you just might succeed.

         

Hi everyone. I got to see Josh yesterday and today. He’s doing OK, waiting for the prison system to get his phone PIN to him from their central headquarters. I guess it’s like losing your ATM card, look how long the bank takes to get you another one. He wanted everyone to know that if he didn’t respond to your letters, either they came when he was out on bail or if he was in the process of answering your letter when he left, he took it with him to add more content and then with everything so crazy, it didn’t get done. He especially wanted to thank his cousin Briget for writing him such a beautiful letter, which he took home to answer and then got reincarcerated. So, please start writing to him again, everyone. He desperately needs that communication and without phone access and of course, no internet access, he feels very cut off from the rest of the world right now. We are going to work on increasing publicity for his case, so if you can organize any kind of benefit or write letters to the editors of local papers or just talk about his case so others know what is going, he would be very appreciative. Please email here as I get those or contact the support team and we will get you the cell phone of his publicist, Mahdis, who will coordinate all PR to make sure we can be effective.
Thanks,
Liz