Comments on: ‘Game Of Shadows’ Guys Are Going Away

By: The Kyle Farsnworth Implosion

The Kyle Farsnworth Implosion — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:56:47 +0000

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.

By: jkr

jkr — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:58:12 +0000

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.

By: Pacifist Viking

Pacifist Viking — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:00:14 +0000

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.

By: jkr

jkr — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:54:21 +0000

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.

By: Pacifist Viking

Pacifist Viking — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:07:04 +0000

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.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:06:31 +0000

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.

By: urabozoo

urabozoo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:24:35 +0000

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.

By: Spulture

Spulture — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:03:52 +0000

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.

By: telly

telly — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:51:44 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:30:23 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:12:50 +0000

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.

By: mjdReader

mjdReader — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:54:07 +0000

“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

By: mtr

mtr — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:16:47 +0000

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.

By: syzygy

syzygy — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0000

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.

By: Mr. Bojangles

Mr. Bojangles — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:09:56 +0000

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.