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

[Boom_70]

When did Whitlock become a Barry Bond's apoligist? In the past he always castigated Bonds.

This is a strange twist. whit is usually consistant.

 

[Lugnuts]

The GJ process is supposed to be secret. What's with the quotes.

Because witnesses in a grand jury are free to discuss their testimony with anyone.

And the people those witnesses discuss their testimony with (i.e. spouses, private attorneys) are free to discuss... and so on, and so on.

There's a misconception that everything in the grand jury process is shrouded in secrecy. It's simply not true.

 

[The Big Ragu]

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 judge isn't doing anything legally wrong. There is no Federal shield law. He can legally try to compel these reporters to testify or throw them in jail. No one is arguing that. What I, and others, are arguing is that there SHOULD BE a shield law for reporters. Do you agree with that assertion? Because that is the crux of the debate.

Do you believe that a free press is compromised when reporters can not offer confidentiality to sources? And if you do, do you agree that the Federal government, as most states do, should have a shield law? If you disagree with my basic premise--i.e. you believe that freedom of the press is NOT compromised when reporters can be compelled to reveal sources, I will then ask you, why would anyone without milquetoast info ever talk to a reporter? Why would a whistleblower who can inform the public of some horrible harm being perpetrated on them ever risk himself? Right now, he is able to rely on the integrity that most reporters in this situation have showed. But it shouldn't come down to reporters' willingness to go to jail. Jail shouldn't even be an option. At least in my belief.

 

[shotglass]

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.

THAT is the ultimate point to be made about this whole deal. Having journalists gather and hold a vigil or whatever, it does make it seem like someone has been done wrong. And nothing was done wrong. A+B=C; A and B happened; C was the result.

When dealing with freedom of the press, perhaps it would help to think of another old saying: "You have the right to swing your fist all you want. That right ends at the point my nose begins."

 

[The Big Ragu]

Yes, because people who have broken no law, and are willing to take a principled stand in the name of something they believe is spelled out in the bill of rights, should be threatened with jail. No harm at all in that. Throw em in jail. They made their choice. Right.

Of course, if it really is a simple "choice" they made to go to jail, the flip side is that 1) the logical thing to do is to avoid the jail time and just reveal the source. 2) So the heck with journalistic principles, which are the only things propping up this aspect of a free press, when there is no legal protection for it. 3) And with those principles out the window, to heck with confidential sources, who have now have no reason to ever to disclose sensitive information. 4) And to heck with news organizations ever reporting anything that isn't spoon fed to them.

But yeah, there is no harm here.

 

[DyePack]

The first week of any good journalism law course, you are told about the consequences of this very thing happening.

The First Amendment has never guaranteed the right to print leaked grand jury testimony. It has never guaranteed the right to use anonymous sources and never divulge them.

These are the facts, and they are undisputed.

The argument here is whether the Constitution itself should be altered. I believe it shouldn't unless media, and newspapers specifically, agree to the parameters mentioned earlier by Mr. Farrar, and my own -- which is immediate action to clean up the credibility problems.

No hemming and hawing about "needing time." There's been plenty of time, and it's been wasted. Either improve immediately or drop the facade.

 

[21]

whitlock made one of the best points on this thread pages ago: This could be any of us fortunate enough--or diligent enough--to get our hands on this story. The folks who want to go to Washington are doing so to show support for their colleagues, not to picket the Supreme Court or burn the flag.

The depth and detail of the BALCO reporting made it possible for every other reporter and journalist to discuss, debate, rant and rail about steroid abuse in sports, and there is not a single soul in the sports media (and beyond) who hasn't benefitted from that.

A show of support seems a small salute for what those reporters accomplished.

 

[jgmacg]

Yes, because people who have broken no law, and are willing to take a principled stand in the name of something they believe is spelled out in the bill of rights, should be threatened with jail. No harm at all in that. Throw em in jail. They made their choice. Right.

Of course, if it really is a simple "choice" they made to go to jail, the flip side is that 1) the logical thing to do is to avoid the jail time and just reveal the source. 2) So the heck with journalistic principles, which are the only things propping up this aspect of a free press, when there is no legal protection for it. 3) And with those principles out the window, to heck with confidential sources, who have now have no reason to ever to disclose sensitive information. 4) And to heck with news organizations ever reporting anything that isn't spoon fed to them.

But yeah, there is no harm here.

Big -

Here's what the Supreme Court said the last time they weighed in on reportorial privilege. Which was in 1972. You won't like it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes

 

[The Big Ragu]

Any good journalism course points out that this sort of thing could happen. And it also points out that it SHOULDN'T be that way. We have the first amendment that guarantees the freedom of the press, and most good journalists believe that the free press is compromised--and the public suffers as a result--when reporters can be compelled to reveal sources.

Just a reminder. An anonymous source brought down the most corrupt president in my lifetime. Anonymous sources were responsible for bringing to light America's secret involvement in Vietnam. They brought to light plans to develop the neutron bomb during the Carter administration. They brought to light the illegal accounting practices at Enron. They recently revealed to us that President Bush had illegally authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans.

Presumably, all of those anonymous sources would have clammed up without a guarantee of confidentiality. That guarantee shouldn't hinge on the reporters willingness to go to jail. That is unjust. It should be legally protected because it goes hand in hand with the first amendment.

The idea of "licensing" journalists is ridiculous. This is a right that is guaranteed in the bill of rights. You don't put limits on it based on two people's ideas about what the rules for journalists should be. What's next, freedom of religion, but only the religions that pass your test for a legally sanctioned religion? How about free speech, but only for people who go to college and pass whatever classes you think someone should have to take in order to have informed opinions in your estimation?

 

[DyePack]

The industry itself should do the licensing, just as it does for lawyers, accountants and physicians.

You say it's ridiculous, but I say it's no more ridiculous than the sham now of having a "noble profession" that's run by penny-pinching companies that have no qualms about pushing most of the experienced people into the streets and bringing in young, cheap labor. Maybe the noble journalists should be taking up arms over that rather than a couple of people who knew they'd be in this situation sooner or later.

None of this protection goes hand in hand with the First Amendment, BTW. To continue to insist this shows a willing ignorance of the facts.

 

[21]

Here's what the Supreme Court said the last time they weighed in on reportorial privilege. Which was in 1972. You won't like it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes

The Branzburg decision ruled (in part) that the Constitution does not afford special protection to informants, and yet the press has managed to survive regardless.

Probably true.

It was the basis of the defense in the attempt to dismiss the subpoena against NBC and Tim Russert in the Valerie Plame case, which failed.

Ragu, you're going to have to get yourself a court appointment if you want to turn this thing around.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Yes, because people who have broken no law, and are willing to take a principled stand in the name of something they believe is spelled out in the bill of rights, should be threatened with jail. No harm at all in that. Throw em in jail. They made their choice. Right.

Of course, if it really is a simple "choice" they made to go to jail, the flip side is that 1) the logical thing to do is to avoid the jail time and just reveal the source. 2) So the heck with journalistic principles, which are the only things propping up this aspect of a free press, when there is no legal protection for it. 3) And with those principles out the window, to heck with confidential sources, who have now have no reason to ever to disclose sensitive information. 4) And to heck with news organizations ever reporting anything that isn't spoon fed to them.

But yeah, there is no harm here.

Big -

Here's what the Supreme Court said the last time they weighed in on reportorial privilege. Which was in 1972. You won't like it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes

jcmacg, I am familiar with the decision. Doesn't mean I agree. The irony is that if I reshuffled the decks of the Supreme Court, as is the case with what the Court has become, I could bring those same cases (there were two other cases that came up at the same time as Branzburg) and it would suddenly become a First Amendment violation. That ruling was passed only 5-4, and as far as majorities go, 5-4 decisions are considered weak.

Also, the way that they ruled in Branzburg didn't create a clear cut precedent. Justice Powell swung it with the fifth vote, and he left manuevering room for reporters in his written opinion. A reporter's claim of privilege should be judged by balancing freedom of the press with the obligation of all citizens to testify about criminal conduct, he wrote. This left it to the lower courts to rule when a reporter has privilege or not and those lower courts have not ruled consistently. It actually created a huge mess of it.