Josh Wolf Letter

Here's the original article: Josh Wolf - blogger - has no press pass

Here's the text of the letter published in the Chronicle:

'Josh Wolf, journalist'

Editor -- As a gay man who lives and works in the Mission, I am offended that Debra J. Saunders would use Officer Peter Shield's sexual orientation as a way to excuse the plight of incarcerated journalist Josh Wolf ("Josh Wolf -- blogger -- has no press pass," Feb. 27).

The comparison in the last sentence to a hate crime is way off the mark.

The activists never put anyone in danger. The only truly dangerous action taken was by Shields and his partner.

Wolf is a journalist, who this year received the Journalist of the Year award from the Society of Professional Journalists. If he had captured a hate crime on video, there may be good reason for Wolf to hand over his tape. But that is simply not the case here, and the fact that Shields is gay has nothing to do with Wolf or the shameful and wasteful actions of the U.S. attorneys.

Here's the full text of the letter I sent:

As a gay man who lives and works in the Mission, I am offended that Saunders would use Officer Peter Shield's sexual orientation as a way to excuse the plight of incarcerated journalist Josh Wolf. The comparison in the last sentence to a hate crime is way off the mark, particularly since the injury to Shields was more likely an act of self defense or defense of another.

Although I don't necessarily agree with the tactics of every single person at the protest in question, the activists never put anyone in danger. The only truly dangerous action taken was by Shields and his partner who drove recklessly into a crowd of people and jumped out of their car chasing activists. Shields ran swinging his baton. Were any of the activists he was attacking gay? It clearly wouldn't matter to Saunders who wrote this piece not as a defender of gay rights, but as a defender of police.

Josh Wolf is a journalist, who this year received the Journalist of the Year award from the Society of Professional Journalists. If he had captured a hate crime on video – and the feds were actually interested in investigating such a crime, which is unlikely – there may be good reason for Wolf to hand over his tape; a court that utilized a balancing test weighing the rights of a free press against other interests might agree. But that is simply not the case here, and the fact that Shields is gay has nothing to do with Wolf or the shameful and wasteful actions of the U.S. Attorneys.