Balco leak uncovered

What are you babbling about now?

Again, Ragu seems slow to comprehend, so we'll have to repost the argument for a fourth time:

Either the information was public when the defense teams received it, as Bo and Luke's attorneys claim, or it wasn't.

 

This, indeed, is the heart of the argument. You've finally arrived. Congratulations. Now, what you need to do is understand that whether information is, or is not, public, has nothing to do with the application of shield laws or whether shield laws are, in general, worthy of support.

Shield laws are invoked to thwart the government from employing the press to learn the identity of a source, or of some other information in the possession of a journalist. Nothing more. The lawyers can argue all they want about the point in a process when information became public, and at no time during that argument will a shield law come into play. I doesn't even matter who wins that argument among the lawyers. The journalists' lawyers might be making the argument that the testimony became public even before it came into the hands of the journalists. So what? If they win that argument, they avoid having to invoke California's shield law as a last line of defense. It only makes sense that the journalists would be trying to keep the issue out of their red zone. If they lose the argument, they have the option of forcing the government to issue a subpoena, at which point they can raise the shield law, and force the government to prove to a judge that the information is both so vital to the government and available from not other method that it ought to be forcibly extracted from the journalists.

 

Bo and Luke Duke, renegades.

 

I have nothing to say here other than I thought it vital to have four straight posts from someone besides fudgepack, who will then post four-straight times of his own...

 

Five straight.

 

Don't you mean five consecutive?

 

Then why are the yeehawers rebelyelling "SHIEEEEEEEEELDLAW" yet again?

Now we're back to "We need a shield, except when we don't, but we do."

Priceless. Again, there really is only one true Game of Shadows, and that's the one the journalism industry seems doomed to wander through.

 

"Now we're back to "We need a shield, except when we don't, but we do."

This from the guy who said the info in the book should have been in the paper (it basically was) and the reporters deserve to go to jail if they don't turn over their sources, even though doing so probably means they -- or any of us -- will never be able to do any investigative work again.

 

I believe I said it should have been broken in the paper.

And you claim it was investigative work, but even Bo and Luke's lawyers say it was public information. Which is it? Is it public, or is it some daring investigative piece? I don't think it can be both.

Of course, that's the same argument I've posted a dozen times now. Guess the Game of Shadows has still engulfed the journalism world.

 

And fudgepack is the only one who doesn't find it tiresome...