6 PA news outlets subpoenaed in grand jury secrecy probe…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
16 Comments
When are they going to subpoena Mike Long?
All this will do is make the news outlets more suspicious.
Keep digging – there is plenty of dirt here.
.
Anyone who understands the financial dilemma of virtually all daily newspapers today, knows this tactic has a distinct chilling effect on news gathering. Believe me, Sprague knows it very well.
I’m tired of the media thinking they’re above the law. If any of the reporters broke the law they should be prosecuted. Nobody is above the law.
Tinian has a point. The issue is not confidential sources, the issue is did the reporters breach grand jury secrecy. So, it is necessary to know where information came from. There is really no good reason for shield laws or special protection for a person employed by newspaper or media anymore than a poster on grassrootspa or a blogger. And confidential source is another way of saying “no accountability”.
How could any of the subpoenaed media have broken the law? I’m not following here.
Old Right is on to the real deal I think. Sprague, Slots & Justice, LLC may be seeking to impact the media. Sprague has a history of extracting sums from newspapers he doesn’t like.
Tinian – You mean no one is above the law other than those in government. Correct??
Bob – Don’t you mean, “Did any of the Grand Jury members break their code of silence.” There is no law, to my knowledsge, against asking questions.
That’s the correct perspective……….if the media got something shouldn’t have……the members of the Grand Jury broke their code of silence…….that’s the issue.
You are right and perhaps that is the point of questioning the reporters: to find out who disclosed Grand Jury information. Is there no law about publishing secret Grand Jury proceedings that were illegal to discuss. Isn’t the purpose to protect the accused? The issue will be “confidential sources”. Can a reporter refuse to disclose the name of a person who disclosed Grand Jury testimony? If he must, this would then shut down leaking because whenever there was a leak, the prosecutor will question the reporter and find out the leaker. No Reporter; No Leaker. And I do think there is a “receiving stolen goods” concept at work. The reporter knew it was illegal to disclose Grand Jury testimony.The law against disclosure serves a real purpose and needs to be defended.
You explained it better than me. The “shield law” allows reporters witness a crime (one could argue, be a party to it) and refuse to testify about it. Do you think you could get away with that? Reporters aren’t gods unto themselves and shouldn’t be held above the law.
Although I now follow your premise, you’re making a circular argument. In a single breath you stated both that reporters shouldn’t be above the law and cited the exact law that protects them.
Are you advocating for the repeal of the shield law?
Russ is right. You’re argument is circular.
And even IF a reporter is a party to a crime, he/she has a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Perhaps I should have taken Con Crim Pro……..
I don’t believe in a shield law for reporters. Does that make my position easier to understand?
Oh, and the shield law doesn’t prevent a reporter from self-incrimination, the 5th Amendment does. The shield law protects reporters from incriminating others. Everyone else has to surrender notes, financial records, emails, etc. to criminal investigators. Only reporters are exempt. They shouldn’t be.
PA Shield Law:
Pennsylvania Shield Law (42 Pa.C.S.A. §5942)
When dealing with lawsuits that arise out of Pennsylvania law (lawsuits based upon violations of Pennsylvania law, including libel lawsuits taking place in federal courts), reporters are protected by what is often referred to as the Pennsylvania Shield Law. This law states:
No person engaged in, connected with, or employed by any newspaper of general circulation or any press association or any radio or television station, or any magazine of general circulation, for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing or publishing news, shall be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such person, in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit. Note: This statute also applies to radio and television stations as long as they maintain and keep recordings or transcripts of the actual broadcast or telecast available for inspection.
This law provides journalists with an absolute privilege against the compelled disclosure of confidential sources of information, be it from law enforcement agencies or private citizens. The Shield Law has been interpreted by the courts to include not only the names of reporters’ informants, but also provides protection to documents, unpublished materials, inanimate objects, and all sources of information obtained by reporters. Therefore, in a case dealing with a violation of Pennsylvania law, reporters cannot be required to produce the names or identities of their informants, documents obtained by their informants (such as invoices or letters), or other sources of information, even if they are subpoenaed to do so.
http://www.pa-newspaper.org/web/2005/10/confidentiality_shield_law_newspaper_handbook.aspx