
In his dissenting opinion in the case of US v Coldwell (1972), Justice William O. Douglas wrote these prescient words which are not only significant to my case, but also reflect the greater state of affairs in the United States today:
Contrary to popular opinion, this legal entanglement which
has held me in Federal Prision for the past eight months, has never
been about a videotape nor is the investigation about the alleged
attempted arson of a San Francisco police vehicle as the government
claims. While it is true that I was held in custody for refusing to
surrender the tape and that the justification for making a federal case
out of this was the police car, things are not always as they appear.
The reality is that this investigation is far more pervasive and
perverse than a superficial examination will reveal.
When I was
subpoenaed in February of last year, I was not only ordered to provide
my unedited footage, but to also submit to testimony and examination
before the secretive grand jury. Although I feel that my unpublished
material should be shielded from government demands, it was the
testimony which I found to be the more egregious assault on my right
and ethics as both a journalist and a citizen.
As there was
nothing of a sensitive or confidential nature on my video outtakes, I
had no reason to withhold their publication once I had exhausted all my
legal appeals. When that point arrived I had already spent three months
behind bars. I was advised by my legal team that publishing the video
would not lead to my release; instead it would indicate to the court
that my imprisonment was having a coercive effect even though it was
not.
This hypothesis was verified when one of my attorney’s
inquired whether the Assistant US Attorney would accept the footage in
lieu of my testimony, he was told that the video alone would not
suffice and that the US Attorney would accept nothing less than my full
compliance with the demands of the subpoena. Things change.
When
the judge came to realize the support for my cause was growing and that
I was unlikely to waver anytime soon, he ordered both parties to meet
with a magistrate judge in the hopes we could reach a solution amenable
to everyone. After two rather strenuous sessions of mediation, we at
last came to an agreement that not only leaves my ethics intact but
actively serves the role of a free press in our so-called free socieity.
In
the words of Justice Douglas, “The press has a preferred position in
our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set
newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring fulfillment to the
public’s right to knowâ€.