Balco leak uncovered

The answer is the same answer that's been provided time and time again, but dumbass Kool-Aid drinkers can't seem to comprehend it.

Anyone who had a working brain cell when the law portion was covered knows many states don't offer legal protection in a situation like this. Those people know they face jail time if they don't disclose a source.

Either learn the facts or STFU.

 

The facts that the reporters knew it was a possibility, and decided it was worth it anyway because of the importance of the story - and that many of us agree with that - is what you appear to fail to comprehend. This is a philosphical difference, Dye, not a factual one. Stop making it an issue of knowing the law or not.

 

Important or not, it's still the law. How can that not be an issue here?

 

What's against the law? Printing leaked grand jury testimony? No. Leaking grand jury testimony? Probably, at least under most circumstances. But that's the risk the leaker takes, not the journalist. And at some point, leaker, writer and editor decide the news value of the testimony, and the importance of it becoming public, trumps keeping the testimony secret.

Now, many would disagree that steroid use is that important. Hence, the philosophical difference. You are, after all, the person who started and kept running the "Bonds, Yeah!" thread.

 

If we're going to start talking about philosophical differences, then I wonder if the people involved with releasing the leaked info ever had this conversation:

"Hey, should we maybe wait for this case to proceed before we taint it by publishing the leaked info?"

Crickets chirp.

 

It's amazing, Dye, that after all this grandstanding, you still haven't answered the question: Which laws did the reporters -- not the leaker -- break to obtain the info?

 

None, but why should he let the facts get in the away of his opinion

 

I guess Rick Telander, Leigh Montville, Rick Reilly, David Halberstam, Steve Kelley, Bob Kravitz, Michael O'Keeffe, Seth Wickersham, Phil Sheridan, Davie Krieger, T.J. Quinn and Charles Robinson, to name a few are all clueless Kool Aid drinkers who did not take journalism 101. http://www.markandlance.org/

 

They all are skilled at ignoring the reality -- many states have penalties for not providing sources when asked by a judge to do so.

This should answer not only the previous post but also several others. So there's no need to keep asking the same question over and over, thinking the answer will be different.

 

what does "many states" have to do with the balco case? only california is pertinent and california has a shield law (which was superseded by the federal court)

CALIFORNIA SHIELD LAW

THE BASICS

The California Shield Law provides legal protections to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source or unpublished information obtained during newsgathering

WHO IT PROTECTS

The Shield Law protects a "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed unpon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service" and a "radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station." The Shield Law also likely applies to stringers, freelancers, and perhaps authors.

WHAT INFORMATION IS PROTECTED
The source of any information. There need be no assurance or expectation of confidentiality.
Unpublished information
Specific information obtained during newsgathering but not disclosed to the public
Includes "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort"
Includes newsgatherer's eyewitness observations in a public place
Applies even if published information was based upon or related to unpublished intormation
Protects only information obtained during newsgathering
WHAT IT PROTECTS FROM

The Shield Law only protects a journalist from being adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for the failure to comply with a subpoena. The Shield Law does not protect the journalist from other legal sanctions. Thus the Shield Law generally does not apply when the journalist or news organization is a party to a lawsuit and other sanctions are available.

EXCEPTIONS

The Shield Law is a provision of the California Constitution. Therefore, there are no statutory exceptions.
However, the California Supreme Court recognized a situation in which the Shield law provides only qualified, not absolute, protection from contempt
When the information is sought by a criminal defendant or upon cross-examination by the prosecution if the journalist has testified for the defendant. In this circumstance, the defendant's federal 6th Amendment right to fair trial preemepts the state constitutional shield law. Delaney v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 785 (1990); Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Cal4th 883 (1999); Fost v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.App.4th 724 (2000).

 

I think they're pointing out that you don't have the answer.

 

The answer has been provided. They just don't like it.