Letters to the Editor
Perelune
Published Letters: 12 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Prop 73 Rejected by Significant Majority of Voters
[Read the article: California rejects teen-abortion proposition]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's report the election results accurately. While it may make a dramatic point to assert that California voters rejected Proposition 73 by only a "narrow margin" (thereby suggesting that abortion rights are in danger in California, as well as much of the rest of the country), the final election results, which were available many hours before Lynn Harris posted her item, reveals that Proposition 73 lost by more than 335,000 votes, or more than 5 full percentage points. I think it would be far more accurate to state that a healthy majority of California voters support a woman's right to choose, unencumbered by the restrictions which would have been imposed under Prop 73.
-
Excellent Analogy
[Read the article: The big lie]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Sir:
I apologize for going off on a side tangent, but I feel I must respond to Brent Whitmore's earlier letter.
I too own a cocker spaniel, with an allegedly fine pedigree, from a line of purported champions. All that inbreeding has made my dog one of the dumbest I have ever owned. My cocker gets by on his good looks and charm, though he will snatch food right from your plate if you are not looking, and sometimes even when you are. His incessant need to attempt to assert himself as the alpha dog leads to constant stream of inappropriate, unacceptable and often bizarre behavior.
I have no doubt that my cocker, left unconstrained, would have little compunction leading an invasion of my neighbor's yard based on the merest suspicion that my neighbor might be harboring cheese.
If my cocker spaniel could drive an SUV, he would drive it in the wrong direction. That is why a responsible owner does not allow his cocker spaniel to drive the SUV. I, for one, find Mr. Keillor's metaphor to be apt.
Sincerely yours,
-
Martyr for What Cause?
[Read the article: First Amendment martyr?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A lot of people seem to believe that the central issue in the Josh Wolf case is whether a blogger can be a journalist. (Of course this question is of great interest to the people who produce and read a pioneering online newsmagazine which features a number of blogs.) Let us stipulate that indeed bloggers can be journalists and let us take Wolf at his word that he is a journalist. Even so, I am having a hard time understanding exactly what is the First Amendment principle that Josh Wolf has “martyred” himself for.
To paraphrase the 9th Circuit’s recounting of the facts in the Wolf case, the activities which Wolf videotaped occurred entirely in public. Wolf simply videotaped what people did in a public place. Wolf never claimed that he filmed anything confidential nor that he promised anyone confidentiality or anonymity. Wolf did not ask anyone any questions while he was videotaping. He was simply a witness with a videocamera at an event playing out on the city streets.
If these same events had been picked up by a building security camera, prosecutors would certainly have the right to subpoena the videotape, even if the camera was privately owned. If a passing non-journalist tourist had recorded these events with a camcorder, virtually everyone would agree that prosecutors would be well within their rights to subpoena the videotape and compel the tourist to testify to the grand jury about what he or she had seen.
Let us assume that Wolf’s footage of the protest which allegedly resulted in the assault of a police officer was directly relevant to the grand jury’s investigation of the crime. Let us further assume (as the 9th Circuit found) that the grand jury’s investigation is being undertaken in good faith. If we can compel ordinary citizens to testify about crimes they may have witnessed and to turn over video evidence they have which may be relevant to the investigation of the crime, why should we allow Josh Wolf to withhold his videotape of events playing out in the open and refuse to testify about an incident he saw simply because he is (or claims to be) a journalist?
Instead of Josh Wolf videotaping an anarchists’ protest, suppose a Fox News crew were to videotape the police brutally attacking a group of peaceful protestors. Shouldn’t the authorities be able to compel Fox to turn over the tape? (I acknowledge that California’s Shield Law might indeed allow the Fox News crew to withhold the tape; if so, the California Shield Law goes too far.)
How is the right to a free press under the First Amendment compromised by requiring Wolf to produce his videotape? What principle is Wolf defending? Does it really impair the journalist’s ability to ply her trade if we require her to turn over raw footage of events occurring out in the open?
Journalists frequently remind us that their mission is to expose the truth. Isn’t that what the grand jury was asking Josh Wolf to do? Wolf freely concedes that he sympathizes with the protestors. Is it possible that Wolf’s initial refusal to provide his unedited videotape to authorities was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to impede (or at least not to assist) an investigation into the conduct of people with whom he sympathizes? Where does the defense of the First Amendment end and obstruction of justice begin?