Viator said:
And this one definately qualifies. Regarding the reporters who wouldn't reveal their sources, they broke no laws. You don't see judges holding doctors, social workers, or lawyers in contempt for refusing to violate confidentiality do you? The American public should be outraged over this blatant violation of the rights guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment (I think it's the 5th). However the story got minimal coverage for less than a week.
The 5th Amendment of the US constitution grants that no person can be forced to testify against themselves in a court of law (no matter how guilty they may be) The 5th Amendment also provides, that a person has the right to refuse to stand witness if, they "believe" that their testimony "might" incriminate them in a criminal case. A civil case can require a person to testify about the case, as long as their testimony does not imply a criminal intent of the witness.
The Grand Jury specifically grants that a witness testimony cannot be used against the witness in "any form of reciprocation" such as, criminal or civil prosecution or any civil or commercial loss due to their testimony. This is called "immunity".
When a witer uses "leaked grand jury testimony" he is usurping the rights of the witness as granted by the jury. The crime was committed by the person(s) who "leaked" the actual testimony. The writer is an "accessory after the fact", which carries the same liabilty of criminal guilt as the actual crime.
The Freedom of Speech defense ends where the Grand Jury(highest civil court in the land) grants immunity. A person specifically, a "public figure" whose image creates revenue cannot be punished by a "percieved incrimination" in a public forum, because that perception can conflict with his "right to persue happiness" by making a financial gain with respect to his name and reputation.
The writers do not have any legal right to withold their source. writers are not granted client confidetiality as doctors and clergy. The writers are "legally" required to explain how they recieved the information, because that information is what constitues the crime. The information then becomes "experienced evidence" in a now criminal case.
The writers are now in position of indictment, they are the most "prosecutable party" in the criminal case. It would be in their best legal(in this case) interest to trade their source for some form of immunity.
The very fact that they used the "illegal information" to make a profit by selling a book as oppsed to releasing it in the general public forum of a newspaper does not help their case.
It is questionable(at best) to create a profit for yourself while creating a loss for someone else by participating in an illegal act.
If I knew the soucre code for WindowsXP; I do not have the legal right to tell the public even though it would be in their best interest to know it.
Freedom of speech does not cover issues of private ownership such as source code and the "marketable reputation" of public figures