Pearl Hunters

by Bruce Schimmel

The FBI has been intimidating people who post the video of the gruesome murder of journalist Daniel Pearl -- and a news organization is giving them leads to help in the censorship.

Several sources report that the Newark, N.J., office of the FBI contacted at least two Internet service providers (ISPs) to inform them that their clients' making the videotaped execution of the Wall Street Journal reporter available to the general public was a criminal offense. The original tape was delivered to American officials in Karachi, Pakistan, on Feb. 21, and excerpts were subsequently shown on CBS.

According to one ISP, the FBI demanded that the clip be yanked because it was in violation of the federal obscenity law. The bureau also demanded the names and addresses of those posting it.

An FBI spokesperson confirmed initially that there was an investigation of a criminal offense. After it was discovered later that the pertinent federal law covers only material that is sexual in nature, the FBI changed its story.

Instead of pursuing a criminal investigation, the FBI then said they asked the ISPs to "voluntarily" remove the video "out of consideration for the family [of Daniel Pearl]."

In effect, then, the FBI launched a probe without ascertaining that any federal crime had been committed, apparently only for the purpose of intimidation.

A good case for official misconduct could be made on that alone. But there's more.

According to the spokesperson, the FBI agents added that the Pearl family was "looking at what legal remedies that they [the Pearl family] may have." In what is clearly a civil matter, the agents were, in the spokesperson's words, "merely giving advice."

How thoughtful for bureau agents to practice civil law without a license.

Not only are the Feds playing Whack-a-Mole with the First Amendment, it turns out that they were doing so with the help, possibly at the behest, of a news organization.

According to the ISP owner, the FBI told him that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) itself had contacted them about the video clips. The paper confirmed they were doing the family's wishes in passing on the information "to appropriate law enforcement officials."

And, it seems, to inappropriate ones, as well.

"We share the family's view," a WSJ spokesman is quoted in an AP story, "that there is no good reason for anyone to ever see this video."

Anyone? Ever?

This is from an organization whose reporter died in defense of our freedom to know.

And I suppose the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination should be suppressed next.

Browse The
June 2, 2005
Issue

Join the
City Paper
Mailing List

24th Annual Writing Contest