Game of Shadows authors may face jail time

[Balta1701]

There's something really disgusting about the fact that it seems thanks to our government's new crackdown on the evil of leaks, the people who wrote the most detailed exposition on Barry Bonds's illegal steriod use may very well face more jail time than Barry Bonds himself. But I guess...we do live in disgusting times.

 

Five people linked to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative were convicted of doling out steroids to elite athletes. But in an ironic twist, two San Francisco Chronicle writers who reported on the probe could end up serving more jail time than any of them.

 

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada are the latest reporters to become entangled in the federal government's ramped-up efforts to investigate leaks. They have been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating who leaked them the secret testimony of Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi and others.

 

The Chronicle, which published the testimony in a series of stories beginning in late 2004, is challenging the subpoena, arguing that the First Amendment protects the reporters and their sources. A lawyer for the Hearst Corp., which owns the paper, has until June 2 to file a request to dismiss the subpoenas.

 

Both reporters say they aren't going to talk -- which means they could be fined and jailed until they divulge their sources, or sentenced to a fixed term for contempt.

 

"Of course, we are going to stand up for our sources and we would never betray them," Fainaru-Wada said.

 

A day in jail would be longer than the probation sentences for BALCO vice president James Valente and track coach Remi Korchemny, who both pleaded guilty to distribution charges.

[YASNY]

This trend of jailing reporters for not revealing their sources has got to stop.

[Balta1701]

This trend of jailing reporters for not revealing their sources has got to stop.

That's actually something of a problem nationwide at this point. There's no "Federal Shield Law" to protect things like that, and only a few people have made creating one an issue. Thus far, nothing's come close to stirriing up public sentiment in support of one, and when Judith Miller is one of the best arguments in favor of one, well, you just don't get very far. I just can't see one happening at any time in the near future.

[YASNY]

That's actually something of a problem nationwide at this point. There's no "Federal Shield Law" to protect things like that, and only a few people have made creating one an issue. Thus far, nothing's come close to stirriing up public sentiment in support of one, and when Judith Miller is one of the best arguments in favor of one, well, you just don't get very far. I just can't see one happening at any time in the near future.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I was always under the impression that the Federal Law was known as the Constitution.

 

Balta ... my sarcasm is not directed at you or your response. It's inspired by my disgust that this is even an issue.

[Brian]

Finally got around to reading it and am only on page 150 or so. Just writing about what we all speculate as fact. It seems the writers have gone into soo much detail and have so many references that I have to believe what they wrote.

I don't understand the whole "name your source" thing going on. I remember it being used against Larry Flynt.

[Balta1701]

Pardon my ignorance, but I was always under the impression that the Federal Law was known as the Constitution.

 

Balta ... my sarcasm is not directed at you or your response. It's inspired by my disgust that this is even an issue.

The constitution protects Freedom of the Press in the sense that it allows the press to be uncontrolled by the government. But it doesn't allow the press universal freedom to report everything, just like freedom of speech doesn't allow you to shout fire in a movie theater.

[YASNY]

The constitution protects Freedom of the Press in the sense that it allows the press to be uncontrolled by the government. But it doesn't allow the press universal freedom to report everything, just like freedom of speech doesn't allow you to shout fire in a movie theater.

 

If the press can't "report everything" then, by definition, aren't they controlled by the government?

[Balta1701]

If the press can't "report everything" then, by definition, aren't they controlled by the government?

I think the way it's been done is that the Press is treated as being a pertinent witness to a criminal investigation...i.e. it's illegal for people in the government to leak that information, and the people who write the story therefore have information relevant to that investigation. So they're not exactly being controlled by the government (except Fox News [/rimshot]), but the courts do have the right to bring them in. Unless we write a law saying they can't.

 

If you want a better explanation you're going to have to Go directly to the legal reasoning.

 

In 1972, in Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court was asked to review three consolidated cases involving reporters who had witnessed alleged drug-related activities in Kentucky and civil disorder activities involving the Black Panthers in Massachusetts and California. The Court's response was unequivocal:

 

We are asked to create another [privilege] by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do.

 

The majority offered some compelling reasons, as well, for reaching this conclusion:

 

Fair and effective law enforcement aimed at providing security for the person and property of the individual is a fundamental function of government, and the grand jury plays an important, constitutionally mandated role in this process. On the records now before us, we perceive no basis for holding that the public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings is insufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering that is said to result from insisting that reporters, like other citizens, respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.

 

In the end, the majority reasoned, the interests of the public trump those of the press:

 

Thus, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a newsman's agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about crime than to do something about it. Insofar as any reporter in these cases undertook not to reveal or testify about the crime he witnessed, his claim of privilege under the First Amendment presents no substantial question. The crimes of news sources are no less reprehensible and threatening to the public interest when witnessed by a reporter than when they are not.

[hammerhead johnson]

Couldn't they just say that some anonymous dude(s) sent them a large package containing the top secret steroid info, with no return address? You know, Shawshank Redemption style?

[WCSox]

There's something really disgusting about the fact that it seems thanks to our government's new crackdown on the evil of leaks, the people who wrote the most detailed exposition on Barry Bonds's illegal steriod use may very well face more jail time than Barry Bonds himself. But I guess...we do live in disgusting times.

 

As much as I dislike Bonds, leaking classified information is illegal. Journalists aren't above the law.

[Benchwarmerjim]

Keith Olbermann had one of the authors on his show the other day

you can see the video here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

and scroll down to 'Video:The Book on Barry'

[Balta1701]

As much as I dislike Bonds, leaking classified information is illegal. Journalists aren't above the law.

The Journalist didn't do the leaking.

[WCSox]

The Journalist didn't do the leaking.

 

The journalist leaked the information to the public, which makes him/her an accessory.

 

While I also disagree with what Judith Miller did, at least she had some (perceived) patriotic motive behind her actions. However, the journalists who leaked Bonds' testimony only did so to impress their bosses and to increase the bottom line for their employers. That's it. "Disgusting" indeed.

Edited May 10, 2006 by WCSox

[NorthSideSox72]

The journalist leaked the information to the public, which makes him/her an accessory.

 

While I also disagree with what Judith Miller did, at least she had some (perceived) patriotic motive behind her actions. However, the journalists who leaked Bonds' testimony only did so to impress their bosses and to increase the bottom line for their employers. That's it. "Disgusting" indeed.

I don't believe there is such a thing, legally, as "accessory to leaking". If some government-related person gave the information to the reporter, and it didn't jeapordize anyone's safety, then I don't think they have to show any particular restraint.

 

I agree with YAS, the intimidation of the press by the government is pretty scary and needs to stop.

 

And HEY, you stole my avatar!!!!

[WCSox]

I don't believe there is such a thing, legally, as "accessory to leaking". If some government-related person gave the information to the reporter, and it didn't jeapordize anyone's safety, then I don't think they have to show any particular restraint.

 

Whether or not safety was jeopardized, the reporter was still an accessory to the crime. Otherwise, Judith Miller never would've been jailed.

 

And HEY, you stole my avatar!!!!

 

Sorry, it was too freaking cool to resist.

[whitesoxfan101]

This is the problem with an extremist government. If the republicans have control, you get this s***, if the democrats gain control, you will see other kinds of sick s***. The death of moderate political thought in BOTH parties in America is a bigger problem than people think.

[YASNY]

This is the problem with an extremist government. If the republicans have control, you get this s***, if the democrats gain control, you will see other kinds of sick s***. The death of moderate political thought in BOTH parties in America is a bigger problem than people think.

 

I couldn't have said it better.

[WCSox]

This is the problem with an extremist government. If the republicans have control, you get this s***, if the democrats gain control, you will see other kinds of sick s***. The death of moderate political thought in BOTH parties in America is a bigger problem than people think.

 

Agreed. This is also a classic power struggle between a conservative government and a left-leaning press that is trying to influence government.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is the problem with an extremist government. If the republicans have control, you get this s***, if the democrats gain control, you will see other kinds of sick s***. The death of moderate political thought in BOTH parties in America is a bigger problem than people think.

Actually, you need to put this in perpective. I agree for the need for more moderate, rational minds in power. But in reality, our two parties are still much more centric than the large parties in most democracies in the world right now.