Balco leak uncovered

I think that puts their source in "knowing violation" -- not them.

 

I think you're delusional.

 

How is printing sworn, secret testimony from a sealed court document - one that you know to be illegally obtained - in a newspaper not a "knowing violation" of "unauthorized disclosure"?

 

That's why you're laying out agate pages and not arguing the law for a living.

 

Again, there's already a response that does the trick here.

 

OK, here's an actual answer. The reason I know that the reporters are not guilty under the law is because (wait for it) they aren't being charged under it. They are being held in contempt until they give the court the name of the person who can be charged under the applicable statute. That is what the whole hullabaloo about "using the media to do the government's job" is about. If they don't give up the name (s), then they will be jailed for violating the court's order, not the statutes regarding GJ confidentiality. Hence, their offense was not in obtaining and publishing the information, but in refusing to respond to a lawful directive from the presiding jurisdiction.

 

How is that not a violation, though? It's contempt of court when someone unseals the records and it's contempt of court when someone knowingly violates those same conditions.

Plus, if it's not a violation of the law, why do we need shield laws? After all, no one is breaking any laws, so why would those people need additional legal protection?

Of course, as I've said about 76 times now, much of this is covered at the start of any business or journalism law course, so I'm sure I'm not telling anyone here anything they haven't heard already.

 

I think we have a Kool-Aid drinker. Don't let that stuff stain your teeth.

 

Don't you have a book that might sell five copies to write?

 

Six copies. Get your facts straight.

 

I'm counting: You, your mom, Barry Bonds, Howell Raines, Wilford Brimley. That's five.

 

Then Barry, Wilford and Howell better give me some fricking pub.