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

The prosecutor, grand jurors and stenographer are not allowed to disclose what happened before the grand jury. You have pretty much assumed that THOSE were the two reporter's sources. You have no idea if that is true. But you are willing to give the government free reign to go on fishing expeditions--all they need to do is have a claim that grand jury testimony MAY HAVE BEEN leaked. I am not on a high horse. And it isn't "self-centered" of me to see the need to limit that kind of government power, which leads down a very slippery slope.

What compelled Jason Giambi to to tell the truth was not a guarantee of secrecy. It was that he would be perjuring himself if he didn't. He has nothing to do with any of this. In fact, the idea of grand jury secrecy was originally meant to protect the jurors. It had nothing to do with witnesses. Even if you take the more modern rationale that you are protecting people who don't get indicted from being smeared, you still don't have much of a claim that there was any harm in this case. Whose rights to due process were violated? Victor Conte? Greg Anderson? They both pled guilty. Either way, no witness was compelled to tell the truth because of a guarantee of secrecy. They were compelled under oath, with perjury being a crime.

I did not say, or suggest, that freedom of the press trumps someone's due process rights. But you are shifting the onus of wrongdoing to these reporters. There is no proof that they did anything illegal. There is, however, a freedom of the press issue here that is much more compelling than your "someone's right to due process may or may not have been violated" argument. It hasn't been established that these reporters received leaked grand jury testimony. So basically, you are fine with the government being able to use that for their rationale for any fishing expedition to compel reporters to reveal their sources. Where do you draw the line? Because that is a pretty much a rationale the government could fall back on a whole lot if they want to shut down reporting on something that is under criminal investigation, whether or not there is any real evidence of a grand jury leak. As a journalist, you more than anyone, should see why the government compelling reporters to reveal confidential sources can have a chilling effect on a free press.

 

This is a very frightening sentiment. Once again, I am kind of shocked at some of what I am reading on a board for journalists. You just proposed that we license a right guaranteed under the first amendment. What happened to the civil libertarians among us? So essentially, is your belief that freedom of the press shouldn't be a universal right guaranteed under the first amendment, and we should put limits on it based on your arbitrary rules?

I'd argue that we have all the licensing requirements necessary. It's called slander and libel law. Don't violate it and your ability to voice or publish anything should be fair game. That is what a democracy is.

I can understand someone not agreeing with me that a reporter's ability to offer confidentialty to sources has a chilling effect on freedom of the press. I don't agree, and I am very surprised any journalist would have that opinion, but I understand. I don't understand why anyone would want to compromise the bill of rights.

 

There are shield laws of one sort or another in nearly every state. So obviously reporters have some legal rights. The states saw fit to pass those shield laws because they agree with what I am saying; a free press is compromised when reporters can't offer sources confidentiality. I am suggesting that the Federal government should follow suit. If you don't agree with the basic premise--that a free press suffers because of this--so be it. But you seem to be agreeing with me, and then minimizing the importance of a free press to a democracy. You'd put limits on it. You can't put limits on rights, because then how do you decide who is the exception?

This has nothing to do with the prestige of the profession. I don't see myself as some truth purveyor. I am not self important. The bill of rights was put in place for a reason, and the first amendment exists to protect any idiot who wants to publish opinions or his version of the news in the forum of his choosing. Don't call yourself a journalist. Call yourself "a guy who writes down stuff, prints it and disseminates it." I'll argue that your ability to do that without government interference is vital to the workings of democracy. It has nothing to do with "journalism" as a profession. It applies to any idiot with a pen, as far as I am concerned.