News-Record.com

This just shows what a slippery slope it is when news agencies suborn illegally releasing confidential information.
It appears the reporters are witnesses to a law violation; i.e., the unauthorized disclosure of Grand Jury testimony by someone with legal access to it. They're witnesses to a crime, the same as anyone else, and they have a legal duty to comply with a Grand Jury subpoena.
There is no special section in the Constitution dealing with "reporters" or so-called "confidential sources."
The fact that the Chronicle chose to publish the illegally leaked material may be another legal matter, depending on what State law says about it.

Pretty soon, JR, you won't have to worry about source revelation. Any reporter using a cell phone (heck, probably ALL your phones!) are subject to source-checking by the NSA. You should be encouraging laws to prevent that disclosure because sooner, rather than later, it's going to be a problem that falls into your (journalists') lap(s).

Uh, no, printing that story won't become a legal matter. Any such law would be an example of unconstitutional prior restraint.

Also, the column dances around the fact that in most cases, grand jury witnesses are free to tell anyone they like what they told the grand jury. Prosecutors generally ask them not to, and there often are good practical reasons for them not to do so, but in most cases there is no legal bar to their doing so.

That being the case, it is entirely possible that the Chronicle is correct in claiming it has neither violated the law nor been party to violations on the part of others.

As badly as some people want the press to become an instrument of the state, there are extremely good public-policy reasons why it shouldn't be. The Framers understood that, and U.S. courts generally have deferred to that principle, with good reason.

That said, not all journalists favor a blanket exemption from testimony. Many of us understand that our professional duties must be balanced against our duties as citizens; the differences of opinion generally lie in where to strike that balance. If, to use an easy example, a reporter working on a story witnesses a homicide or a bad wreck, say, and is the only witness to it, I certainly would expect him to answer investigators' questions to the best of his ability.

The N&R has cooperated with investigators in certain instances. One example I can think of off the top of my head was about 15 years ago, when a prisoner who escaped from Davidson County and later shot a Nevada state trooper called one of our reporters from jail and confessed to the shooting.

Uh, no, Lex, you have neither the legal standing nor the legal knowledge or background to determine whether an issue in another state will become a "legal matter." That's what we have lawyers, courts, and judges for.
The article does not identify whether the info was leaked by a witness or by a member of the GJ. If it was by someone legally sworn not to reveal it, such as a GJ member, then it most certainly is a legal problem for that leaker. And if that person only leaked it to a newspaper because of inducements or bribes, etc., from the newspaper, then the news reporters could be in violation of conspiracy statutes.

Somewhat on-topic, read this and watch the video.

Let's try this again WITH the link.

URL: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/21.html#a8369

Click here

Sue, here's an article on that discussion without the ad-libbed liberal castigation:

"Attorney Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted
May 21 10:43 AM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.
The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name as well as the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program.
Gonzales said he would not comment specifically on whether The New York Times should be prosecuted for disclosing the NSA program last year based on classified information.
He also denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources.
"We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said, under a "probable cause" legal standard.
But he added that the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an "obligation to enforce the law."
"It can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," Gonzales told ABC's "This Week." "

"But he added that the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security." (liberal castigation or not, it's his words)

Is that not the scariest interpretation of the right of a free press you've ever heard?

John, please either:

1) Link to a case that illustrates that I'm wrong, or

2) Consider the possibility that my opinion might be based not only on my own reading and research but also on the opinions of people who ARE lawyers and who have been paid a good deal of money to give me and my colleagues correct, accurate legal insights and advice.

And whichever option you choose, please try to keep the ad hoc attacks and personal venom to a minimum. Thanks.

"Is that not the scariest interpretation of the right of a free press you've ever heard?"

No, it's not. "Free" press doesn't mean the right to violate laws with impunity.
What he's saying is that journalists/reporters, etc., will be held to the same standard as everyone else when it come to investigating and prosecuting national security violations. I expect this from our government. We're a nation of laws and impartial enforcement of those laws is the foundation of our legal system.
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a journalist/reporter the right to break the laws that the rest of us must obey.

Lex, please link to an article that shows that the State of California has made a legally binding decision that there is absolutely NO legal problem with the case at hand involving the SF Chronicle.

Lex, can you point me to where I made any attack, ad hoc or otherwise, on anyone? I'm confused, I made no such remarks about either you or Sue.

I agree with you, John. Journalists, like everyone else, are expected to obey the law. And if they are subpoenaed or charged, they have the right to use the legal system to fight the subpoena or the charge.

Now, I happen to believe that informing citizens about the actions of their government -- or activities of intense public interest -- are within the duties of the news media -- papers, tv stations, bloggers. I can understand why some people would like the public to be kept in the dark, too.

Hence, the courts.

I do appreciate knowing what lawyers are for. (Your response to Lex. :))

John, there is no such case re the Chronicle because prior restraint is a federal issue, not a state issue, and has been dealt with a great length in the federal court system. You are, I trust, familiar with the concept of "precedent."

As for ad hoc attacks, it took me all of seven seconds to find one: "You're a 'faux Republican' who claims that title when it suits you, while you do everything in your journalistic power to destroy Republicans." My blog, 6/3/05, 9:51 p.m..