Quote:
Originally posted by macallan25
From what I understand, the testimony was private and was restricted by law for use between the individuals that were involved with those court proceedings.
I was listening to ESPN Radio this morning and they had a legal advisor on and he said that from what it appears under the circumstances, First Amendment rights were not broken because the information was illegaly leaked.
|
I'm not disputing that leaking the information was not legal. However, I don't think that means the reporters should be held in contempt for refusing to reveal their sources.
I look at it like this: It's a violation of the law to possess crack. However, the cops can't stop you on the street for no reason because the Constitution provides that we have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That right means that the police can't stop you for no reason (more or less, depending on where you are).
It's a violation of the law to leak the information that was leaked here. However, the Constitution provides protections for a free press. That right means that the government can't compel reporters to reveal their sources even if the sources obtained that information in a manner that violates the law. Of course, others (including courts) might disagree).