News Reporter convicted
 

Hmmm first of all I want to quote our 1 rst Admendment,

and heres a link to what I'm talkin about http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/18/mu....ap/index.html

So what do you think, was this journalist wrong for not telling who his source was. I say no because he gave the public something that they needed to know,
which is that a mayors aid is taking bribes. What's your opinion on this? wow this is the first thread I started in a long time. :eyespin:

Hmm, you seem to think the US is still a free country. The only amendment most republicans give a damn about is the second, and they don't even get it right... Even so, this type of case is not unprecedented. The problem here is the source probably leaked the files illegally to the reporter, and they tried to pressure him into revealing who it was. I don't know why they bother though, no decent reporter would ever reveal his source in a case like this. Once they do, they'll be lucky if they can get a job in the mail room of a tabloid.

the leaking just wont stop!!!

well. i dont really see why he doesnt give them the name. is this not a closed session of court? can they not just obscure his/her name?

This sort of thing happened before, in the Dr. X case. There is a very detailed discussion of the pertinent matters here.

That is just stupid.

Frankly, when I first read the thread title I was thinking that he was convicted of broadcasting false news, but Fox does that all the time and gets away with it so that couldn't have been it. Rather, he's been convicted of doing his job and keeping the public informed while maintaining the confidence of his sources.

Its a great day to be a reporter.

It's a matter of professional ethics, not to mention prudence. Investigative reporters are not required by law to reveal their sources, and in fact are traditionally protected against prosecution in such a case. Otherwise, they can't do their jobs properly. No one will want to tell them anything, and they won't want to cover the really dangerous stories. Hopefully this ruling won't stand up to appeal, since it seems like a pretty transparant attempt at browbeating in the first place.

It does raise a more interesting question, though.
This is the same question the came up in the Clinton impeachment trial. Can someone who is not guilty of any other crime be criminally punished for their responses in a courtroom? Clinton's perjury charge was fairly easy to make stick, but contempt is an ambiguous thing even in normal circumstances. It would be nice if a higher court recognized that someone is abusing their power as a judge.

Fox News, very tellingly, is not registered as a news organization. Each time they are brought to court (and it's been many times), they argue that they are nothing but an entertainment service, and are protected by the first amendment. So far it's stood up, but there must eventually be a reckoning. :cool:

My take of it is basically the judge is PO'd at someone blatently defying his gag order. The reason behind this guilty charge is basically to ensure a fair trial of the case and the report basically made it more difficult to ensure a fair trile. The judge thinks (and probably knows) that someone that he gagged leaked the info and he wants the report to admit it.

This is your basic, the 1st Amendment vs the 6th Amendment. The judge is to guarantee a fair and just trial. By someone leaking the info, the reporter basically contaminated the pool of potential juriors and will predudice the trial.

BTW, this is not just in the US. England, Austrailia, etc. and courts based upon the same common law system have all seen this. Using the "do not disclose the witness... bunk" has worked but in the majority cases, it doesn't work. Why? It has been ruled many times that these leaks are used as a "harassment tool" or "extortion tool" to force a mis-trial and causing the court chaos.

Think it of this way. If you were the girl who accused Kobe Bryant of Rape, would you want your name broadcasted so you would be so embarassed that you would drop the charge? OR would you want to be Kobe and someone videotaped the "crime" and sent it to the media? Either way, it makes a mockery of the courts.

All of that is true, and whoever leaked the tape broke a gag order and should be punished, but there was no order imposed on the media, only on the people involved, so the reporter didn't do anything illegal, and is well within his rights to protect his source.

what? people didn't see this coming? infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens to catch a few more criminals is exactly why the patriot act was created. The government is so fucked up right now that it isn't even funny....

This reminds me something Judus (or maybe one of the other apostles, i don't remember the passage off hand) said in the new testimant... (Being an atheist, i fucking hate to take examples from the bible.... but fucking hell, i can't think up a better one....) When Jesus used ointment on his tired feet, Judas called him a bad person for using something so expensive when selling it could raise money for the poor. Jesus told him that there will always be poor people now and forever, but that he would not always be on this earth to help them. What Jesus said was very true to this situation and all the others to come until the patriot act is abolished. There will always be criminals no matter how many freedoms we give up, It would be foolish for Jesus to punish himself so extremly to help more poor then he would have. And it is foolish to punish ourselves so extremely to stop more criminals than we already are.

EDIT: ah, fuck, now i'm going to be thinking about this all night... anyone have the passage or remember which apostle was bitching to jesus? I think it was in the book of Matthew....

Yes, it was Judas and it was John 12:2-8 (edit, now I look it was in Matthew 26 as well). It wasn't Jesus using it on his own feet but the harlot Mary washing his feet with her tears, drying them with her hair and using th very expensive ointment afterwards. It's an interesting passage, but I don't think Jesus meant it to be as defeatist as it's been variously interpretated, and not just by Hobo.
As for the reporter, what else is new? If it's any consolation to him, there are still countries and governments where he would have been beaten up, tortured and maybe even killed to get him to spill the goods. Not that it's fun to be in jail, but while there's life there's hope.

Nothing suprises me about American Journalism since things like Fox News Network are around.

(Yes dammit, I'v seen outfoxed, and I think it's the biggest rape of modern day journalism, Bill O'reily deserves to be hung, and god forbid dictatorship-like propagandising like FNC ever rears it's ugly right-wing head in Europe)

Third definition of the term "contempt": "Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body."

Snipped from the Assiciated Press article:

"Judge Torres has said the leak was meant to either disrupt the corruption investigation at City Hall or deprive defendants of a fair trial by influencing prospective jurors.

The tape aired in 2001, two months before Messrs. Cianci, Corrente and others were indicted in the investigation code-named "Operation Plunder Dome." Both Messrs. Cianci and Corrente were convicted and are serving time in federal prison."

Do people think that protecting the rights of someone who may be a criminal is a bad thing? There are countries in the world that treat their criminals worse than the U.S. does with hers; you just hear more about that country's actions these days, IMHO.

It's called "equal protection under the law" or "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Both statements are true. Another statement "trial by public opinion" also comes to play.

If you are going to argue 1st amendment rights, does that mean you violate the 6th amendment and so forth? We have to stand above the zeolots who want to make a name for themsevles otherwise we might as well get rid of all the judges and appoint the National Enquirer as the judge and jury.

BTW, Fox news is an Austrailian company registered in the US as an affiliate.

That's inherently what media coverage does. We all thought OJ was guilty before the trial began, we all thought Scott Peterson was guilty before any trial began, we all thought the cops in the Rodney King beating were guilty before any trial. This stuff happens, and there are means to reduce its effect on a trial via selection of a jury with as little prior knowledge beforehand or simply up and moving the case to another state. The same measures to protect these people's sixth amendment rights were no doubt used in this case as well.

The press is only interested in one thing: the truth. If they reported the truth than there is no harm done because anything they reported would be brought up in the court case anyways. If they distorted/made up something than they can be held liable for what they printed.

Finding the person who leaked the tape, while understandable, shouldn't be done through intimidation of a reporter who did nothing wrong. Essentially the government is violating the reporter's rights to find somebody who violated a defendant's rights. How can we really hold claim to have any rights if they can so easily be broken by the government?

These days, it seems the press is more interested in getting readers/viewers/etc. than anything else, including the truth. One can argue that it's the section editor, main editor, and ultimately, the news organization at fault, but just because someone is following orders doesn't mean he's 100% innocent.

We can have the FBI tap the phones, bug the homes and offices, and read the mail/e-mails of everyone involved, I suppose, to find the guilty party. Drag them in, one by one, and dose them with sodium pentathol (or whatever chemical is in use these days) and other drugs to make them talk and later think it was a bad nightmare. ...

Assuming the "we" means Americans and not other countries' citizens, "individual's rights" are a pretty new innovation. Times ago, you have the right to live in poverty, starvation, and a lack of education; longer still, you have the right to be trampled under if a lord goes to war. These days, certain governments have tried to protect and prevent such things; Western European countries, for example and if I'm not mistaken, generally have very high living standards relative to everyone else. Nothing is free, though, and can change depending on the times and circumstances.

This isn't about government, IMHO, but rather about the law and the interpretation of the law, which is the job of the courts, as well as the dignity of the court. You don't get much respect - and people will not obey someone they don't respect - by flailing about like a fool.

It also costs money and more importantly, time to move a trial elsewhere, find other jurors, and deal with the motions raised by defendants, if any. Something you didn't need to think about doing before; people can speculate all they want.

Lastly, as AnimeOni had mentioned, which right has precedence when there is conflict? Between a government state and an individual? Between two individuals? Between two states? Compromises, good ones anyway, often require both sides to surrender something.

Such a TRUE statement. Some reporters are just in it for the ratings. It's just like that Ohio newswoman who reported news in the nude. The ratings went sky high but nobody was "hurt."

Basically, with the reporter who will not disclose the source, will someone get hurt? Who knows but I want to make it clear, if a reporter who releases information and someone does get hurt, they better damn well take responsibility and face the consquences of their actions. Free speech does not mean at the expense of another. There is a delicate balance and if they tip the balance, they have to take responsibility.

Speaking of responsibility, many journalists today do not feel that they should take any form of responsibility. For example, if an embedded reporter in Iraq shows the military plan move supplies and let's the insurgents know, should the reporter be held responsible if the convoy gets ambushed and people die?

heh... i don't read interpretations of the new testiment, it always seemed like bullshit to make Jesus seem larger than life. But what other interpretation of that passage is there? anything else i can think up makes Jesus seem like an egotistical asshole.

Most imbedded reporters are more responsible than that. Remember they go where the troops go. If they reveal the movements, and a convoy gets ambushed, then they get ambushed too. Since they don't want to die, they won't say anything until after the operation is over. Of course there are exceptions to anything... Also according to the rules that the reporters have to agree to, that kind of thing is not allowed, so even if nothing happens as a result, they will be removed.

No he's 100% innocent because he didn't break any laws. His "crime" was not abiding a court order that violated his rights. It should be seen no different than a court order for someone to be a witness against himself (Amendment 5).

Do the laws not also apply to the courts and the judges? "Who watches the watchmen?"

Don't understand where you're getting that. The 6th Amendment puts the responsibility of a fair trial on the government not on the media... If he didn't get a fair trial it's the government's (not the media's) fault. Doesn't matter how difficult or costly it might be to ensure it. After all they have to provide attorneys for those who can't afford them. Violating someone's rights to make your job easier is hardly a good defense.

Geraldo deserved a good kick in the ass...

Ah, he was the one who violated the rule about reporting troop movements. I knew someone had, which is why I mentioned exceptions in my last post, but I wasn't sure who. Glad someone remembered.