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

Yes, by people associated with the case, i.e. lawyers, judges, jurors, court employees, etc. Leaks by witnesses and journalists are not illegal. These reporters are not being jailed for leaking the testimony. They're being jailed for failing to follow the judge's instructions.

 

They accepted, and reported off of, sealed documents.

 

A big no to licensing. Can you imagine trying to cover the governor when your license is up for renewal and the governor's patronage flunkies on the journalism licensing board control your future?

BTW, the Founding Fathers surely meant "freedom of the press" to mean "freedom to blast the opposition." Cos in those days, newspapers were mostly editorials supporting the publisher's politics or blasting those he didn't like. The Founding Fathers didn't envision the Washington Post or the New York Times. All the same, the Constitution does change with the times.

 

Lugs,

You've been wrong about this several times now. You bought into the government's subterfuge. It wasn't Victor Conte. The government just wanted everyone to think it was Victor Conte who leaked the information. I'd bet it was Jeff Novitzky, who originated the whole damn thing because, essentially, he had a hard-on for Bonds.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/20/BAGSEK25241.DTL

 

The reporters still broke no law.

And they haven't been charged with anything.

If they do get thrown in jail for contempt, when the judge is satisfied they simply will not reveal their source, he's under an obligation to set them free. There's no "set jail term" they will serve because they haven't been convicted of a crime.

When they see the question on an application, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" ... They will check the 'no' box.

I feel confident you fellas have the capacity to understand this one.

 

Cran - I was not aware of that development about Conte. I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong.

But I'm not wrong about witnesses being allowed to reveal their grand jury testimony.

There's this misconception that everything said in a grand jury is secret. It's not.

 

And they're still sitting in a concrete cubicle, and they still made the conscious decision to go there.

I am wondering if Bubba will make the distinction when he decides one of them looks purty.

You are arguing semantics.

 

Lugs,

But if it was someone from the government leaking the GJ testimony, it raises the point that FB has been making. (Excellent series of posts on page 3, FB) I don't think the leaks were some great bit of "investigative" journalism. I believe the writers were being used by someone to illegally get potentially damaging information out into the public. I don't believe reporters should allow themselves to be used like that and shouldn't have granted the leaker anonymity in the first place. To me, the crime (I believe) they allowed was worse than the one they reported about.

 

Shottie - It's jail! ;D They're not being shipped to Alcatraz.

I think it'll be something like the setup O.J. had. I don't think Bubba's going to be a problem.

Hey - I'm with ya, Shottie. I've argued from the get-go it was their choice and that they knew the risks.

dog had an excellent post about this a few weeks ago. I think he said he was in a position where jail might be a possibility -- fortunately it didn't happen.

This kind of work is not for the weak. I just thank God somebody has the balls to do it.

---------------------

Cran: The issue of being used? That's a call every reporter has to make. Most sources have an agenda. The good reporters make the right call. These guys stuck to the facts. I think they did a good job.

 

Good point. And it's not as if the free world depends on baseball being steroid-free. I would assume the Chron debated all this in-house before publishing amd ran it past the company's lawyers and ultimately decided they wanted the story. That's what it comes down to, and that's fine. But they knew the risks involved. No doubt the judge understands the First Amendment, and no doubt the newspaper understands the judge needs to try to protect the sanctity of the grand jury process, and they both understand why the other has to do what's being done now. It's a formality, an inconvenient one, but a formality.

 

Tell that to parents whose kids are experimenting with steroids.

A Seattle paper did a series on a high school coach who was sexually abusing his players.

Some of the sources were anonymous. What if they'd been compelled to reveal their sources?

The "free world" doesn't depend on some girls getting sexually abused.

Do we now have to start qualifying good journalism based upon what the "free world depends on"?

 

All news organizations have those kinds of discussions about whether the story is worth the risk to the paper. Obviously the Chron decided it was. But as someone else wrote, this isn't the Pentagon Papers. Come off it -- this story isn't about kids taking steroids and the public's good, it is about celebrity and a traditionally second-rate newspaper trying to get some respect by finally being aggressive, and you know it.