His name, your honor, is Deep Throat.

SF Chronicle writers' subpoena upheld.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/08/15/bonds.steroids.ap/index.html

 

That blows, get the orange jump suits ready.

 

21 was chiding us on another thread on the other section of the board, so I'll throw my thought out there.
This is part of an alarming trend that goes back 10 years, at least.
Judges and juries are quicker to rule against the media.
Judges are quicker to seal court records and issue gag orders.
Judges are quicker to try to compel reporters to testify.
It's not a good trend, and it affects everyone, not just those of us in the industry.
But the public at large takes the First Amendment and its own access to information for granted. People don't like the media and don't want the media doing its job, yet people still wan't direct and easy access to information and surveys still show that public expects the media to fullfill its watch-dog function.
It's difficult for most people to understand the function and importance of the First Amendment.
We've discussed many times how to bring it home to readers during Sunshine Week and other special project work.

 

Leaking grand jury testimony is a crime. I don't see how these two guys get out of it.

I also don't see the Deep Throat parallel.

I think the only way these guys avoid jail is if their source is offered immunity and they reveal his/her name.

 

I was not chiding! I was just commenting on it.

Does no one really care about this? Seems like a pretty big deal, no?

 

But not telling who committed the crime - if you know - makes you an accessory.

This is a tough one

 

seems to me that the fundamental problem here is with the nature of the crime. it's like the crime of 'receiving stolen property' -- a serious crime but not nearly as serious as the stealing part.

if these guys gave up their sources -- assuming the sources are people who talked when they shouldn't have -- all their legal trouble would go away and the focus would be on prosecuting those who leaked. journalistically that might not be the best thing to do but legally they did nothing wrong.

so when people talk about passing a federal reporter's privilege law it's simple for the bush administration's lackeys to paint it as protecting criminals -- because although it technically protects only the reporters who never committed a crime it has the consequence of protecting the criminals, too.

so the logic at work is all convoluted, so to speak.

 

First off, don't make this a Bush thing. It's not.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White is a Bush appointee. That's true. He has also ruled against Bush administration policies, notably with regard to immigration.
So, he is a Bush appointee. He doesn't seem to be a 'lackey.'
Also, the growing disdain the judicial system has for the press predates the Bush administration.
Anyway, the reporters are not federal employees. They cannot 'leak' grand jury testimony.
They might receive 'leaked' testimony, but they are not 'leaking' it.
This kind of short-sighted ruling should be alarming to everyone, not just those of in the industry, because it can hamper the dissemination of potenitally important information.
Take a case of government corruption. A federal official or agency being investigated for corruption, being investigated by the federal government. The grand jury process can be used to keep information hidden from the public. Information that the public wants and needs.
If a reporter gets his or hands on that leaked information, he or she should go to jail?
Although that is not the situation in this instance, these kinds of decision have an overall chilling effect on the First Amendment. And in the event of my hypothetical, everyone will wish we hadn't lost important ground in cases like the Bonds case.