[CIMC-work] Fw: [Imc-legal] Re: IMC video footage & shield laws

[Chris Kaihatsu]

----- Original Message -----
From: <stevec at riseup.net>
To: <imc-legal at lists.indymedia.org>
Cc: <imc-uk-video at lists.indymedia.org>; <imc-sf-video at lists.indymedia.org>;
<imc-video at lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:11 PM
Subject: [Imc-legal] Re: IMC video footage & shield laws


> imc legal folks,
>
> these are the types of issues i saw forthcoming when developing the IMC
> legal list. i'm taking the LSAT this weekend and finishing up finals this
> week. Having had my SF IMC Cal. Highway Patrol press pass yanked because
> of the Humboldt County Sheriff making allegations regarding me in march
> 03', I'll assist on this one, but not until next week. I've done some
> records requests and dug up some information on the way law enforcement
> percieves the SF IMC locally at least. In the sheriff's eyes here, IMC's
> aren't news, there a bunch of activists with some sort of agenda or cause.
>  I also know that the First Amendment Project in Oakland has done some
> records requests on behalf of others for the SF imc peoples.
>
> I've gathered some useful insight in regards to the shield laws of
> california as it relates to civil cases, but we need to gather information
> regarding criminal cases in the context of Miami. A weekly publication
> here in local No. California was subpeona'd by Pacific Lumber to a
> deposition for writing an article about treesitters almost a year ago. The
> article which resulted in the subpeona is located at:
> http://northcoastjournal.com/030603/cover0306.html
>
> The follow ups to that subpeona being dropped:
> Editorial regarding a corporation issuing subpeona's for a civil case:
>
> http://northcoastjournal.com/051503/pub0515.html
>
> "Last week this newspaper -- and one of our reporters, Andrew Edwards --
> was served a subpoena by Pacific Lumber Co. to testify under oath and to
> turn over all our notes, tapes, unpublished photos and anything else in
> our files regarding the treesitters in Freshwater. PL attorneys are
> seeking any information that may enhance their case against a group of
> treesitters and their supporters who trespassed and, according to PL,
> harmed the company.
>
> Why we are being subpoenaed is an interesting question.
>
> The subpoena is for a civil case filed by Pacific Lumber, not the criminal
> trespass charges being pursued by the county. The law is very clear: In
> civil cases, where an individual (or in this case a corporation) is suing
> another, a reporter's material is protected by the California Shield Law.
> That can only mean that PL is either not well-informed as to the law by
> their attorneys, or they are trying to harass and intimidate this
> newspaper."
>
> The follow up article to what happened with the subpeona for a deposition:
> http://northcoastjournal.com/080703/pub0807.html
>
> The publication's attorney's cited the shield law and PL/Maxxam dropped
> the subpeona. Point being, let's get organized on these issues. Yes, the
> shield laws do provide some protections and we need to illicit what those
> protections are.
>
> I attempted to get a twiki user and password set-up but ran into a snafu
> with the password. I liked the idea of a IMC legal FAQ whereby we can send
> the general IMC journalist to for answers to those questions they
> initially might have. We've got incredible resources as far as people with
> knowledge on these legal issues. We just need to tap into them.
>
> Has anyone on the IMC legal list been in phone contact with MAD from
> Miami? What about tapping into the Italy IMC folks from Genoa and what
> they've learned? I'm wondering whether there are other ways we can assist
> other IMC groups out there? Can we develop "suggested" legal policies for
> IMC videographers which might assist in protecting them from subpeona
> harassment either in a criminal and civil context? We also should provide
> the legalities like explained in the video posting to those lists, that
> the footage needs to be raw and not manipulated, etc.. All very useful
> tools for the IMC videographers and the attorney's taking the civil rights
> abuses into their local court system.
>
> Who's got interest in developing these sort of FAQ for legal issues? The
> benefits of working for a major publication is that they have law firms
> answering these questions for them, with the IMC we'll have to wing it
> with the grassroots guerilla law support so to speak.
>
> Steve C.
>
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:10:03 -0800 (PST)
> > From: SuZQ <suzq at riseup.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Imc-legal] FW: [IMC-Video] imc video endangerment
> > To: John Windmueller <john at conflictresolver.com>
>
> > Italy IMC had a similar problem in february 2002; looking for Genoa
> > footage, cops raided IMCs and social centers across Italy to grab raw
> > footage, computers ... they even grabbed a dildo!  Since then ITaly IMC
> > has issued a "guide to safe taping" about how to film demos without
> > endangering comrades.  The National Lawyers Guild has also made such a
> > guide, I think.  Would be worth distributing before demos.
> >
>
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, John Windmueller wrote:
> >
> >> This was posted by someone to the global imc-video list, but I thought
> >> that perhaps folks on this list might want to consider the issue.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: imc-video-bounces at lists.indymedia.org
> >> [mailto:imc-video-bounces at lists.indymedia.org] On Behalf Of amory starr
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 3:22 PM
> >> To: imc-video at lists.indymedia.org; imc-sf-video at lists.indymedia.org;
> >> imc-uk-video at lists.indymedia.org
> >> Cc: 'Marc Steier'; rob ross
> >> Subject: [IMC-Video] imc video endangerment
> >>
> >> hi all,
> >>
> >> i worked with MAD legal in miami. this email applies to all imc-video
> >> folks, not just those who worked in miami.
> >>
> >> as you know, video evidence can be very useful in helping activists in
> >> their defense against some very bogus charges. in order to be used in
> >> court, the video must be unedited and there must be a videographer able
> >> to assert that s/he did not invent or tamper with the tape.
> >>
> >> as you are also probably aware, video evidence can incriminate folks in
> >> the background while defending folks in the foreground etc etc.
> >>
> >> a few weeks ago regarding a different issue i asked this list about
> >> control over use/distribution of video and got very little response. i
> >> also read all the faqs and followed links regarding financial control
> >> over tape. what i learned is that imc materials are protected only by a
> >> few white papers, and not by a single internal policy, let alone by any
> >> kind of legalese. while the grassroots participatory model of the imc
is
> >> a beautiful part of our movement, unprotected video archives can
> >> endanger fellow activists.
> >>
> >> employed journalists are protected by some kind of legal thing called a
> >> "shield law" which prevents cops and prosecutors from subpoenaing or
> >> otherwise grabbing all the raw tape and charging folks at will.
> >>
> >> can imc-video look into the possibility of gaining "shielded" status
> >> from law enforcement while also affirming open-publishing for
democratic
> >> media purposes? i know this is a lot of work, but we owe it to our
> >> brothers and sisters in the streets! we aren't doing a very good job
> >> supporting the 110+ political prisoners already in jail in the US, we
> >> can't afford any more!
> >>
> >> amory
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-legal mailing list
> Imc-legal at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-legal
>