Balco leak uncovered

You're being a fathead. Please make an argument. Tell me why, clearly, we do not need a shield law.
With a shield law, none of the statutes you posted at length would apply. Because no reporter would be jailed because that law would prevent it. A federal shield law would protect journalists in federal courts, so your harping on state shield laws is irrelevant. Judy Miller was a terrible reporter and she was jailed because we don't have a shield law, but her case doesn't make the case for a shield law, pro or con, either way.

 

It does make the case for the flaws in the shield law argument, however, which is why we don't hear much about Judy these days.

The real problem with having an across-the-board shield law is how it could be misused. If a newspaper has an agenda, and enough stooges who won't question it, abuse could happen easily. And then it would be legally protected because you'd have no way of finding out if a source truly existed.

 

So you wouldn't say that 62 percent of the country is "most?" How can you say that with a straight face? That's the most ludicrous thing you've said on this thread, which takes some doing. Furthermore, there's no way you can parse that to make sense.

And since you're so fond of telling people to look things up, I'll provide you with the definition of most. The first one is most appropriate, but the fifth one might be most applicable to you.

1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.

–noun
4. the greatest quantity, amount, or degree; the utmost: The most I can hope for is a passing grade.
5. the greatest number or the majority of a class specified: Most of his writing is rubbish.
6. the greatest number: The most this room will seat is 150.
7. the majority of persons: to be more sensitive than most.
8. the most, Slang. the ultimate in something: He's the most. That movie was the most.
–adverb, superl. of much with more as compar. 9. in or to the greatest extent or degree (in this sense often used before adjectives and adverbs, and regularly before those of more than two syllables, to form superlative phrases having the same force and effect as the superlative degree formed by the termination -est): most rapid; most wisely.
10. very: a most puzzling case.
11. Informal. almost or nearly.
—Idioms12. at the most, at the maximum. Also, at most.
13. for the most part. part (def. 34).
14. make the most of, to use to greatest advantage; utilize fully: to make the most of an opportunity.

 

I know it's "Kool-Aid" central, but you should take a look. It explains things in a way even Dye Pack could understand: http://www.markandlance.org/faq.html.

 

So when more than one-third of the states don't have a shield law, you would say most of them do. OK.

Now we're back to we need shield laws, except when we don't, and then we do.

I'll take a look at that link now, which I'm sure will be more telling with what it doesn't say than what it does.

And what ever happened to that newspaper report about the positive tests for steroids? Funny how we don't hear about that, even though the positive tests are back in the news. Wonder why ...

 

At the link -- it's the 100-meter semantic high hurdles!

Mark and Lance want to protect confidential sources! But they published unsealed sealed testimony!

But that was no longer confidential! After all, the transcripts were released to the defense lawyers! So it was unsealed unsealed sealed testimony!

So the information was public, even though it wasn't! So it has nothing to do with grand jury secrecy, even though it does!

I especially like the page heading -- free Mark and Lance, even though they aren't in jail.

I wonder if the people who are providing the "bipartisan support" for a federal shield law -- you know, the one we need, except that we don't, but only when we do -- are paying attention to all of this.

 

It's not what I would say versus what you would say. It's objective reality versus delusion.

Most is more than 50 percent -- and sometimes less, because most really means more than the other thing you're comparing it to. What's hard to understand about that?

In this case: If one-third DOESN'T have shield laws, two-thirds of them DO. Which is a bigger percentage? Thank you for admitting you're wrong.

 

The majority would be more than 50 percent.

Don't keep tripping yourself up with semantics, though. There's already enough tripping over the arguments.

To summarize:

We NEED a shield law, but we don't need one. Except when we do, but we really don't.

The testimony was unsealed sealed testimony. It was available to the public, except it wasn't because it was provided to lawyers who have taken an oath of confidentiality.

So it's not really contempt of court not to disclose that, even though it is. Except when it isn't, since there should be a shield law. But there isn't one yet, even though we really need one, except when we don't.

And we should free the Bo and Luke Duke of journalism, except they're not in jail. But we should be ready to free them, even though Week 1 of any basic journalism law course explains this very situation. Bo and Luke should be free, though.

And my personal favorite: The government's not investigating, except when it is.

And didn't the L.A. Times have an article about positive steroid tests? Oh yeah, it was discredited almost immediately. But we need a shield law to protect things like that. Except when we don't, but we really do.

And wasn't there another writer who was in this same situation? Judy something or other? Wonder why we don't hear much about her these days? Oh, that's right, her situation illustrates precisely the danger of an across-the-board shield law. Except we don't need one. But we do, even if we don't.

 

WTF? Do you actually know how shield laws work? They do not come into play unless a prosecutor wants to put into evidence some information held by a journalist. They govern the actions of the government, not the press. If the press were making up confidential sources in a matter that concerned the state, it wouldn't take a subpoena to determine the fabrication. In fact, the existence of a shield law would make it easier for a prosecutor to uncover a falsehood because the subpoena would force the prosecutor to construct a set of facts that satisfy the tests necessary to overcome the shield. While the burden of proof rests with the government, it wouldn't take long, under the glare of a hearing to quash a subpoena, for a fabrication to reveal itself. Then a newspaper would be a whole heap o' trouble for lying to the court about the facts.

And, in fact, it IS factually incorrect to state "it's contempt of court when someone unseals the record." When that "someone" is a government official, such an act is a crime, not contempt. A journalist, who CAN be held in contempt for any number of reasons, does not "unseal" any records. The criminal unseals, the journalist (legally) publishes. It CAN be contempt for someone to act contrary to a judge's order, and I suppose it's possible one such judicial order might be to preserve the secrecy of some kind of information. In those circumstances, I guess unsealing a record would be considered contempt -- but those kind of circumstances are not what we're talking about here.

 

They're exactly what we're talking about here. The statutes are posted in this very thread.

Wow.

 

Yes they are.
And they either don't say what you claim they do, or they are inapplicable in the context of the discussion.
You're turning into the living definition of a-little-knowledge-etc.

 

How they can be inapplicable in this case is a somewhat wild claim.