Well, this is unfortunate. Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams have been sentenced to prison. There are still appeals to be made, but if they don’t get it overturned, they’ve been sented to do 18 months.
They’re certainly not the first journalists to be going to jail for a refusal to give up their source. I don’t believe they did anything but seek to present the truth to the public, but at the same time, the government’s got every right, in fact, it should be expected, to do all they can to figure out who illegally leaked grand jury testimoney.
It’s too bad that they’re probably going to do time. They’re not bad people, they didn’t seek to do anything but put the truth out there. A free press is important. It’s more than important, it’s crucial. It’s necessary. They did their job, and they did it well.
But at the same time… protecting grand jury testimony is also important. Not to me, necessarily, but you could see why it would be important to our legal system. I may not like the law that says they have to go to jail, but it is the law, and it’s not a secret to anyone.
I’m left in the position of admiring Fainaru-Wada and Williams, but I can’t really feel bad for them. I don’t want them to do time, I wouldn’t wish that on hardly anyone. But they published a book that contained grand jury testimony, and they had to know that this was a risk they’d face along the way. They did it, and they’re not backing down from it, and I admire the hell out of them.
I probably wouldn’t do the same. Scratch that–I definitely wouldn’t do the same. If someone gave me some private grand jury testimony that indicated that Barry Bonds was injecting steroids, smashing the skulls of baby puppies with concrete blocks, had killed Jon Benet Ramsay, and was currently harboring Osama bin Laden in his basement… well, it’s not going to be me that rats him out.
If they end up going in, I hope their stay is brief and devoid of any sort of anal violation. Good luck, fellas.
Laettner Stomp
I guess I would be more outraged if these guys had only written a series of newspaper articles and had to go to jail. But, they used the testimony to write a book and make a profit off of it. Something about that aspect of it doesn’t feel right.
September 22, 2006 at 8:33 am
Rusty
Sending journalists to prison is a relatively new (and unacceptable)practice. It’s a clear example of prior restraint which was all but deemed unconstitutional in 1931 by Near v. Minnesota. I think. It’s been a while since I took a class on this.
Anyways, the public’s right to know is a far greater interest than the government’s right to protect grand juries. This “kill the messanger” attitude is ridiculous and people should be outraged.
September 22, 2006 at 9:05 am
Moonshine Mike
All the other journalists are whacking off thinking of the gay sex those guys will be getting tonight.
As for the crime, yea, they published stolen info. They didn’t end up on the X-Files.
September 22, 2006 at 9:46 am
Tom Smykowski's Lawyer
The trick is to kick someone’s ass the first day, or become someone’s bitch.
September 22, 2006 at 10:05 am
Mr. Bojangles
Fuck them. Journalists have been using shady references for a long time, and it’s their responsiblity to make certain that the information presented is on the up and up, both in terms of data integrity and legality. Someone illegally provides you with court-sealed testimony and you show it off for all the world to see? And now, they’re obstructing justice by not revealing that person they basically exposed, and they’re going to have to take one for the team. Hello, gross lack of forethought. You want to protect your sources? Don’t fucking expose them in the first place!
This isn’t like reporting on corruption in the courtroom or writing speculative pieces; this was pure muckraking for profit, plain and simple. Don’t admire these morons – they may not have a choice now (if they give up their source, they won’t go to prison, but they pretty much kill their careers), but they sure as shit had one when they decided to include the testimony in their book, so they’d have a nice smoking gun in there to increase sales. They’ll be out in a few months, and have a nice, lil media martyrdom to play off for the rest of their days. It’s better than these douchebags deserve.
September 22, 2006 at 10:42 am
Bish
Kind of ironic that these guys, Greg Anderson, etc. will all do time, while Big Head Barry never will.
September 22, 2006 at 11:02 am
KP
I’m with Bojangles. Save your admiration for Greg Anderson. He’s pleading the fifth out of friendship and has nothing monetarily to gain. (at least until he writes a book).
Rusty, when it comes to “secret” or “classified” shit, whether it’s grand jury crap or National Defense, the public’s right to know is the most overrated concept in history. The less we know, the better off we are.
A perfect examble is all this BS with CIA interrogations. Now that the wussified public knows about it, there’s an outcry to be nice to these fucking terrorists.
September 22, 2006 at 11:37 am
Mark
I think KP and Bojangles both present extreme sides of the issue, and I don’t agree fully with either. However, I will agree that the law is the law, and the government has the right to know who illegally leaked grand jury testimony. If the law is to change, it will be up to (since I believe it would be a federal question) the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress itself to change it. Until either speaks, trial court judges have no choice but to follow the law as written.
The worst part about all this is that Barry will likely escape scot free. As stories of this nature increase, he continues to look more and more guilty, less and less credible. Someone in MLB or the legal system in general MUST go after him and break him down if he’s done something illegal. Otherwise, by jailing these two journalists, even though they broke the law, the appearance of a double-standard exists.
September 22, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Pacifist Viking
Bullshit to anybody who thinks journalists should go to jail over this. For a democracy, a free press has to be an absolute priority, and the ability to protect sources without the threat of prison should be part of that. Otherwise the government is allowed to hide all sorts of shady doings (and they have done so, and will continue to do so). Without illegal leaks, “we the people” are patsies from whom “our” government keeps all sorts of secrets that we really should know about. I realize a story about baseball players isn’t on that level, but it’s still an example of journalists punished for trying to find things out that the powers that be don’t want them to find out.
Do you know according to “Reporters without Borders,” in 2005 the U.S. ranked 44th in the world for press freedom? 43 some countries have a more free press than the U.S.–that is ridiculous for a country that helped found the idea of free press. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15331
September 22, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Rusty
KP, I would hate to lower the level of discourse here, but you are a moron.
1. Publishing classified information is legal. Read New York Times v United States (1971).
2. The less we know the better off we are!? WTF!? A free press is what separates a healthy democracy from a totalitarian regime. Granted the “right to know” here is only steroid use and not something like illegal CIA torture, but it’s still in the public interest to know what public figures are doing. More importantly, the precedent that reporting the facts will get you put in jail significantly weakens our country.
3. Bojangles, their sources were on the up and up. Their information turned out to be accurate. It doesn’t matter how the information is obtained as long as it is accurate.
September 22, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Rusty
Pacifist gets +100.
September 22, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Doug
The problem with the argument made by Rusty and Pacifist is that this actually helps the notion of the free press. Anonymous sources are an epidemic on journalism and need to be curtailed. We have grown a long way from the way Woodward & Bernstein used anonymous sources to the carefree and irresponsible way that they are used currently.
September 22, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Pacifist Viking
But Doug, without anonymous sources, most of the important stories that come out DON’T HAPPEN. I have to think the higher-ups in government would LOVE for anonymous sources to be banned outright. Almost every bad thing that our government has done since the Vietnam era that has reached the public did so through anonymous sources.
Threatening journalists with prison is ALWAYS a bad idea for the freedom of a country. All over the world, countries have laws that call for punishment of journalists who do such terrible things as insult a leader or insult the pride of the country. This is a problem. The U.S doesn’t have that serious problem, but ANY threat of jail for journalists for simply writing a story that is true is a bad, bad idea.
(Full disclosure: I was a research assistant on two books on censorship, so this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart).
September 22, 2006 at 1:23 pm
The Big Picture
are we talking federal pound me in the ass prison?
September 22, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Doug
I don’t buy that most stories won’t come out without anonymous sources. In general, I think not relying on sources so much will lead to more investigation on tips, rather than just relying on what the anonymous source gives to a journalist. It’s what they did in the old days of journalism and think it’s taken a bit of a nose dive in recent times. It leads to a lot of rumor journalism, rather than using an anonymous source properly.
For this case specifically, the source they are keeping anonymous knew very well that the possibility of the reporter revealing their name was there. They proceeded anyway, so I’m not sure how that goes to an argument that stories wouldn’t be broken.
I don’t really see this as censorship, I just see this as maintaining the integrity of the free press, which is the most important First Amendment concern. Like you said, “The U.S doesn’t have that serious problem”, but if we continue to allow people to run wild with no restraints on their sources, people are going to lose trust in the press, which we can’t have.
September 22, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Pacifist Viking
Doug, there are secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe. Without anonymous sources, we don’t know that. You might not buy it, but evidence suggests there is a lot we either wouldn’t know about at all our wouldn’t know about until it is too late to do anything about it if anonymous sources didn’t leak information.
When I said “The U.S. doesn’t have that serious problem,” I meant we don’t have laws on the books against insulting leaders or insulting the nation (A Turkish writer was just aquitted for “insulting Turkishness” for what a character in her novel said!). But if we jail journalists for hiding anonymous sources, we do have A serious problem (which is why we rank 44th in the world for press freedom).
Maintaining the Press’s “integrity” isn’t the government’s job; maintaining the Press’s freedom is.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
To me, a law that allows journalists to be jailed for hiding anonymous sources is an abridgement of freedom of the press.
September 22, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Doug
Stories have also been uncovered without relying on just what is leaked by anonymous sources. USA Today has a policy not to use unnamed sources, they were the first to break the NSA wire tapping story with good journalism. Again, this current situation was one where these sources knew that there was a good chance they would be revealed, yet followed through anyway. That doesn’t exactly help the argument that by naming sources at a later time, in court proceedings, we are going to stop people from coming forward.
In maintaining the integrity of the press you maintain the press’s freedom. If no one can rely on the press, trust the press or turn to the press to uncover these stories…if in effect the press crumbles like a house of cards…then what does that freedom matter? I’d like to think that the First Amendment holds up the press to be an important part of this country. When you read Thomas Jefferson’s comments about the role of a free press, I think this comes clear.
September 22, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Laettner Stomp
But the whole point is that leaking grand jury testimony is illegal. In this particular instance no one involved is any real danger. But what if the leaked testimony revealed the name of a state’s witness or the identity of a spy working in a foreign land? Wouldn’t you want the anonymous source found out? Wouldn’t you be pissed that a journalist ran with the story? Maybe this is apples and oranges, but the law is there to protect people testifying.
September 22, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Rusty
Doug, you said: “In general, I think not relying on sources so much will lead to more investigation on tips, rather than just relying on what the anonymous source gives to a journalist.”
But those tips often come from anonymous sources!
September 22, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Pacifist Viking
I’m not suggesting that ALL stories come from anonymous sources, but that SOME do, and sometimes, those are important stories.
Leaking grand jury testimony is illegal; if you can find who leaked it, punish the leakers. But in order to do their jobs well, journalists need to be protected from revealing the leaker if they know it. It is ALWAYS a bad idea to put journalists in jail based on stories they write and to punish journalists at all for stories that are truthful.
Doug, I care about the First Amendment and the purpose of the press as much as anybody. But it is my belief that allowing journalists to protect their sources indeed PROTECTS the First Amendment and the purpose of the press. The government should not be allowed to punish journalists for their work–it is too easy to abuse (see the countries where there are laws against insulting state leaders; these laws are often used to punish journalists who write truthful stories that are critical of leaders).
The more limits you have on journalists’ rights and abilities to write stories that can offend the powerful, the more you destroy the “integrity” of the press that you care so much about.
September 22, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Pacifist Viking
I guess you can count me much less concerned with journalists who abuse anonymous sources than I am about the government’s ability to punish people who use anonymous sources to write necessary stories.
September 22, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Mr. Bojangles
Laettner Stomp hits the nail on the head – you’re protecting the people testifying, and the court is obligated here. You can’t change a legal precedent and let shit slide just because you hate Barry Bonds or think the steroid problem in baseball needs an expose. It’s not about degrees – sure, no harm here, but the next guy who does it to make a name for himself in other circumstances?
Fact is, these guys had a thousand ways they could get the truth out. Innuendo, nuance, and suggestion are all part of an investigative journalist’s arsenal. However, they flaunted having information they should not legally have for commercial interests, and incriminated the very person they are now trying to protect. Tell me, do you want journalists to have the freedom to pick and choose who gets arrested, for the sake of selling books and making a buck?
What if a journalist is approached for an exclusive deal serializing a unrepentant murderer’s crimes without having to reveal the killer’s identity? I doubt ANYONE would say that journalist has a right to profit from someone else’s illegal activity, and that not giving up the identity of the person is obstruction of justice. Beyond the severity of crime, what’s the fucking difference?
September 22, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Pacifist Viking
Journalists need to be protected. Yes, putting the blanket of protection on journalists hiding sources is going to protect some less-than-noble journalists. The First Amendment also protects the speech of Nazis and the KKK, but that’s no reason to get rid of it. Protecting all journalists from revealing sources means allowing some problems, but the bigger picture is that journalists are free from threat when they piss off the wrong people in government. Just like the First Amendment allows assholes to speak but is important enough to keep, a law protecting journalists from revealing sources would allow assholes to go free but would still be important enough to keep.
September 22, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Rusty
Bojangles, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Innuendo, nuance, and suggestion are not part of a journalist’s arsenal. Journalists report facts.
And I could care less if Bonds did steroids or not. I’m not involved in any Bonds witch hunt. I am just for protecting the all-but-absolute right that journalists have to seek the truth without fear of government reprisal.
And you’re treating these authors as for-profit monsters. That’s silly. That’s like condemning Woodward and Bernstein because they published All the President’s Men.
BTW, Woodward and Bernstein broke a few laws and used a bit of information that they weren’t supposed to have (like names of jury members) to break Watergate. Aren’t you glad that the public’s right to know was protected?
September 22, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Rusty
Pacifist, I’m a mess without you. When this all gets sorted out, I think you and me should get an apartment together.
September 22, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Pacifist Viking
I miss your musk.
September 22, 2006 at 4:11 pm
mjdReader
I agree with those who think freedom of the press trumps govt’s need to find out the leakers.
This case is particularly disturbing if you think about who had motivation to leak the testimony – the government.
Worse case, realistic scenario: the same institution that leaked the story and benefitted from the leak is now going after the messengers they gave the information too. Nice!
September 22, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Mr. Bojangles
Guess we’ll agree to disagree, since I think we’re talking apples and oranges here.
My big mistake was thinking an entire book built around speculation, backed by illegally-gained grand jury testimony and a maze of paperwork, is ‘reporting the facts’ for the good of the general public, most of whom already knew Bonds was juicing thanks to crucial (but legally obtained) baseball card comparisons. God bless those SF Chronicle reporters, putting their necks out to protect someone who only broke one of the most important laws our legal system has. I hope none of you are ever on the opposite side of this legal conundrum.
Maybe they’ll donate the proceeds of the book to the ACLU. Minus bail, of course.
September 22, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Pacifist Viking
Mr. Bojangles: I’m not saying these SF Chronicle writers are heroes or wonderful journalists or anything (I don’t know enough about the story to comment on it).
HOWEVEVER, you can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don’t abolish the First Amendment just because it protects the speech of Nazis, and we shouldn’t assume that just because some writers protecting sources are bad, therefore we shouldn’t ever allow writers to protect their sources.
It’s not apples and oranges. We don’t get to pick and choose on free speech. Protecting journalists who hide their sources will lead to some problems; however, it will lead to more good. If you’ve got a perfect solution in which we throw bad journalists in jail but protect good journalists, I’d like to hear it. I think it’s worth it to protect the bad journalists if we also protect the good ones (just like it’s worth it that the First Amendment protects bad speech; it also means its protecting good speech, or more accurately, not allowing the government to determine what is good or bad speech).
September 22, 2006 at 4:36 pm
DookieStyle
does anyone care that leaking the grand jury testimony potentially hurts bonds in any legal matter, and that there is no way he’d have a fair trial, because said testimony was leaked?
That’s the problem. That’s why they goin’ to the pokey.
September 22, 2006 at 4:39 pm
KP
Rusty, I appreciate being called a moron for disagreeing with you. Shows how openminded you liberal pansies really are.
I’m not arguing against having a free press.
I’m just sick of the whining about how somehow we’re setting a bad precedent for putting these two money hounds behind bars.
The press has lowered it’s standards ten fold since the internet got going.
Now there are BS stories run on BS sites all the time, some of which end up getting picked up by AP without any verification.
The press has had it made the last 10 years or so. Cry me a friggin river already.
And Pacifist- Has finding out about the Secret US prisons changed you or your way of life somehow? Do you sleep better at night knowing that we’ve been exposed?
Why in the world do the American people need to know about that Black Op kind of stuff?
September 22, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Mr. Bojangles
Dookie, that’s exactly the case I’m making in regards to legal precedent. I don’t see how this is a first amendment case – we aren’t imprisoning them for publishing the book, we’re imprisoning them for not naming the individual who broke the law protecting the rights of the people in that courtroom. The same would happen to you or I if we broke a subpoena. How is it different? Dicey ground, but the platform PV is taking presumes they’re being punished for what they published. No one’s censoring the press here, but giving carte blanche to any journalist’s ‘anonymous source’ as a way to promote the first amendment is, in my opinion, just as dangerous.
September 22, 2006 at 5:09 pm
syzygy
I haven’t read all 31 comments, so if I’m retreading ground here, just ignore me.
These guys are sportswriters, and the contents of their writing affects no one except sports fans, and even then it’s just confirming what everyone already knew. Acting like these guys did a great thing by defying law for the public’s benefit is totally absurd. They defied the law for their OWN benefit (monetary, reputation, etc.) and nothing more. I can’t feel much sympathy for them.
Maybe I’d side with the jouralists if they’d reported on something of consequence, but it’s fucking baseball.
September 22, 2006 at 5:56 pm
mtr
Has anybody caught the irony here that Grand Jury testimony is secret so the Grand Jury’s sources are protected?
I have to admit I’m not comfortable with reporters being able to be party to a felony and refuse to help an investigation into it under the umbrella of “we were writing a story.” I think both sides should stick to their guns: the court should sentence them to jail and the reporters should decide if it’s worth it to go.
September 22, 2006 at 6:16 pm
mjdReader
“A free press is what separates a healthy democracy from a totalitarian regime”.
I don’t understand why your so paranoid. What possible evil could government do?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
September 22, 2006 at 7:54 pm
James
Funny,
Everday people get their rights stepped on and reporters are content to sit back and watch and report form an objective point of view. they are quick to tell you that they cant get involved.
However, now that it effects them they are on the courthouse steps and shpowing outrage….hypocrites.
They knew they were breaking the law and were a party to it. Now its time to pay the piper, or your cellmate bubba.
September 22, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Mark
MJD, you’ve really got a way of provoking these political discussions.
I thought I saw the issue moderately. That’s not interesting enough though, apparently.
I know you didn’t intend it to sink to this…I don’t know what to tell ya man.
September 22, 2006 at 11:30 pm
telly
I don’t have a whole lot to add here, other than what “Rusty” and “VikingPacifist” said, which was right on the mark.
The big danger in cases like this where you imprison journalists for publishing leaked information is precedent… and I think it’s pretty clear that the government is trying to establish precedent here, in regards to leaked grand jury testimony.
September 23, 2006 at 9:51 am
Spulture
Wow…I love the Republicans up there supporting the torturing of prisoners.
Did anyone here Peter King on the Douchebag Patrick show yesterday? He fully defended leaking grand jury testimony in this case because it’s such a danger to humanity, but not in a criminal case for like a mob boss. How does that make any fucking sense? What did the public gain from knowing the truth about Bonds? Everyone suspected it. This is just sensationalism or they would have nailed all those guys with the Carolina Panthers to a similar cross.
I think these journalists did a good thing, but I also think they were trying to make a name for themselves and make some money on a book deal–not just tell the truth as MJD says. Otherwise they would have just broke the story in the paper like Woodward and Bernstein.
September 23, 2006 at 12:03 pm
urabozoo
Oh cry me a river! These guys made alot of money off of this. They are not journalists or reporters, they wrote a book and made alot of money off of it. Now they are being called out to prove what they wrote and refuse to cooperate.
September 24, 2006 at 3:24 am
Rusty
They did break the story in the papers…the leaked grand jury stuff all appeared in the Chronicle. These are not novelists. They are journalists who came to this information using accepted journalism techniques.
Making $$$ off of something does not change one’s Constitutional protections.
September 25, 2006 at 9:06 am
Pacifist Viking
KP: an informed populace can make informed choiced about its government; an uninformed populace can’t. So yes, I think knowing about those prisons can affect our lives.
Bojangles: It is a First Amendment issue indirectly. A journalist shield law is necessary to maintain the integrity of the First Amendment and the Free Press. Yes, it will protect douchebags, but it would aslo do a lot of good.
September 25, 2006 at 9:07 am
jkr
Just to agree with those who spoke about the importance of protecting grand jury testimony. Here’s the thing about a grand jury. A witness is not allowed the benefit of a lawyer or of pleading the fifth (a lawyer may be there, but the witness still has to answer the DA’s and the GJ’s questions on his own). The ONLY way for this to be legal, or acceptable, is for that testimony to be absolutely sealed.
The free press is quite important. So are our civil rights, including the fifth amendment. What was done with Giambi and Bonds made a pretty big mockery of the protections that the legal system was supposed to provide. Yes, Bonds made a mockery of it by lying as well, but perjury charges could be brought without the leaked testimony. (Giambi’s the one who has even more of a complaint here.)
The guys published what they thought they had to publish, using illegally-gained information. Let’s put the best spin on it and say they were following their convictions — fine, good for them for following their convictions. But they were part of a crime against the justice system, which is at least designed to protect our rights. If they thing that this story was important enough to be part of that crime, cool, it’s an act of conscience and civil disobedience. The point of civil disobedience is not that the good consequences mean that the law doesn’t apply to you. It’s that you have the courage to go to jail.
September 25, 2006 at 9:54 am
Pacifist Viking
I think the leakers of the grand jury testimony should be punished. I think it’s also possible to mount an argument that these journalists should be punished simply for publishing leaked grand jury testimony (though I have qualms about that–it’s not like “The Pentagon Papers” weren’t classified. Sometimes journalists must make decisions about whether it is better or worse for the country if they publish classified info. In this case, I would say, worse). But I don’t think the journalists should be charged with obstruction of justice just because they know who leaked the testimony. It’s not that I lack respect for the sealing of grand jury testimony–just that I’m overly concerned with the freedom and protection of journalists. Just a different set of legal priorities, I guess.
September 25, 2006 at 1:00 pm
jkr
Fair enough, and I certainly share the impulse towards protecting journalists. But part of the importance of the free press is that journalists and newspapers are not government entities — they’re citizen (or private corporations) exercising their rights to speech. Unless we want to do away with obstruction laws altogether, journalists have to be subject to them as well. The alternative is that some people are allowed to say things that other people are not allowed to say. And with that, we would lose the independence of the press.
September 25, 2006 at 2:58 pm
The Kyle Farsnworth Implosion
Isn’t it the government’s job to find the grand jury leak on their own? It seems like cheating to punish the reporters for not outing their
source(s). Its like getting mad at the kid in high school who wouldnt let you copy the homework on the bus. Sure he probably deserved that wedgie for something else, but ultimately it’s your responsibility to do your own homework.
Very dangerous to erode freedom of the press, even a little.
October 3, 2006 at 2:56 pm