But U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan says in a court filing that Wolf's resistance "is apparently fueled by his anointment as a journalistic martyr" and that he needs "to come to grips with the fact that he was simply a person with a video camera who happened to record some public events."See, U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan thinks he and other government enforcers like him are "The Only Ones" with the authoritah to decide who gets to be an "authorized journalist," and he also thinks it's appropriate to publicly ridicule and menace those foolish souls who might challenge that assumption.
What's Ryan even doing there in the first place?
[F]ederal prosecutors took over the arson case from state authorities on grounds that San Francisco's police department receives funding from Washington.
Oh. Well OK then. Just so we know how the yoke got there.
Government sanctioned journalists--and the federal government at that. Yep, that pretty much dovetails with my understanding of what the Founding Fathers meant by a "free press." And let's not even get into what they must have meant by "federalism"...
2 comments:
While Ryan is full of stuff? I can't see that Wolf is correct in his stance. Perhaps I don't know enough about the case, but it seems incumbent upon him to testify as he has no confidentiality issues. However, by his refusal to do so, and Ryan's stupid remarks, this has become about who is a journalist and who gets to say whom is.
If Wolf were protecting a source it would be different, but as he is wrong in withholding in this particular case, any victory by Ryan will be seen as the state's right to determine who is an "authorized journalist" and who is not. Not the issue, but confused enough that the crack in logic leaves a hole large enough to drive a freight train through sideways.
SA, no argument--IF an "authorized journalist" would be forced to give it up as well.
My points were simply:
1. Govt doesn't get to decide who is "approved" to be an information content provider.
2. What a stretch to bring in the feds--kind of like the Commerce Clause on steroids.
Post a Comment