Important...Please read if you're a journalist...

All I know is that a judge is probably a little more well-versed in constitutional law than any one of us.

And a judge (actually, multiple judges if you look back at past cases -- Miller, etc), is saying that this does not violate the constitutional protection of free speech.

This isn't the big bad government censoring the press.

This is a judge. And no matter how many sports writers join hands across America and claim that those four words "freedom of the press" are being dealt a disservice in this instance, a judge, who, I will repeat, is probably a little more familiar with the ins and outs of first ammendment law, disagrees.

It really doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

The central question on this thread seems to be whether this case should provoke us to get off our asses. No one's in favor of the Chron guys doing hard time and getting porked by Bubba, but those who are less irate about this injustice seem to believe that if we want to take a stand on the First Amendment there are less trivial stories we could do it about. Too, I think that getting hyper over this case sort of perpetuates the inaccurate stereotype that we in sports live in our own little-bus world and never considered the First Amendment until it affected a sports story.

 

Anybody -- A-N-Y-B-O-D-Y -- who believes that sexual assault of a child is on the same scale (sliding or not) as some athlete pumping himself full of HgH is, I'm sorry to say, detached from what many of us like to refer to as Planet Earth.
As for licenses, well, since th very first triumph on these shores for the American concept of a free press was over that very issue, I'd say not in a million years.
We have to self-police on anonymity and we do a lousy job of it.

 

Frank, I agree with everything you just said, except this.

There do seem to be folks on this thread who think the Chron guys should go to jail and get porked by Bubba. They may not all be journalists, but some probably are.

 

No, but I'm sure there are people who believe those reporters who exposed the sexual assault should have to reveal their sources if a judge ordered them to.

 

Find me one of those people who wants the Chron guys locked up.
There are some people who are less doctrinaire on the issue than others, but I haven't found anyone yet who wants these guys in jail.

 

Some people think cucumbers taste better pickled.

 

Is that not what Columbo and cranberry are saying?

I've been on these Chron threads for awhile, and there are always a few who think the book should be thrown at these guys for "tainting" the "secret" grand jury process.

 

See, that's the beautiful thing about democracy and our system. A judge wouldn't order the journalists behind that story to reveal their sources.

It's apples and oranges.

In our system, it is a judge's job to interpret the law and decide how it applies to certain situations. In this case, a judge decided that the Chron reporters were compelled by law to testify.

I don't really understand you bringing up the Seattle story or any other story in which anonymous sources are cited. That's my whole point, in 99 percent of situations in which anonymous sources are used, the result is not a criminal investigation. Unfortunately, the Chron guys found themselves in that one percent situation. And now they have to deal with it.

This is not gloating at their situation. I'm sympathetic to their position. Believe me. But the law is the law, and, in this instance, I have to believe the judge made the correct interpretation of the law.

 

I hope you aren't lumping me in with them. I don't want to see anyone go to jail. I could give a shit whether the grand jury process is "tainted." All I'm saying is that the law says these guys must testify or go to jail. And, in this case, I understand the rationale behind the law. If they go to jail, good for them. It's their choice. But it isn't some grave injustice. They, and, I presume, their editors, made a choice. They knew this was a possibility. And, lo and behold, the possibility is now a reality.

I'll go on record as saying I'm supportive of the decision these guys made, and if I was in their position, I would have made the same decision, as long as the bosses were supportive of it. But I'm not going to campaign against injustice here. Because there was no injustice.

If you want to argue that there should be a federal shield law protecting journalists, that's another story. But if you put aside your emotions, you'll realize that there is nothing to protest here.

The government, understandably, is attempting to figure out how supposedly secret grand jury testimony was leaked. And they are attempting to see if a crime was committed when it happened. Unfortunately, a couple of reporters are caught up in it.

Are the reporters criminals? No. Is their situation unfortunate? Yes.

But as my father used to say. Dem's da breaks.

 

The GJ process is supposed to be secret. What's with the quotes.
The reason for a shield law regarding sources and notes is largely to prevent the government, usually the police, from using the media as an investigative arm of itself. The curious part of this case is that the SFC may have been (not "were") being used for just that purpose. You don;t know if they were leaked the stuff from the prosecutors any more than I do.

 

And their lawyers, too. Before they ever published, I hope.