Tweet
IMHO, this piece, Principles, by Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus, is one of the most sensible commentaries on the reporters and the leaked testimony that I have seen.
...
However, Fainaru-Wada and Williams are asking for exactly what they refused the witnesses to the grand jury. When the men and women were ushered into the room to testify, they did so knowing that the testimony they provided would be sealed, heard and read only by the people in that room. The principle of the sanctity of grand-jury testimony enables the judicial system to prosecute crimes using the exact same tool--the promise of confidentiality--that Fainaru-Wada and Williams used in obtaining the information and publishing it.
Fainaru-Wada and Williams showed no concern for confidentiality when they wrote front-page articles using the testimony, signed contracts to write a book based on it, made the rounds of talk shows promoting it, and, I'd imagine, when they spend the money they made off of it. Principles have only come into play now that they’re the ones being asked questions in a courtroom.
Understand that these two men had a choice. When they were offered the testimony, it was still not public information.
...
The crime was committed when the leaker passed the testimony to the reporters. Let’s be clear about that. Neither of these men has committed a crime. Once the testimony was in their hands, they were legally free to use it in any manner they chose. But they were also free not to use it, to put the principle that grand-jury testimony is sealed above the pursuit of headlines, above the instinct to share all available information with the public, above profit. They were free then to make a principle the backbone of their story. No book deal would have come about, but they would also not be looking at jail time.
The freedoms that we have in this country are broad, but they are not absolute. In the same way that your freedom of speech can’t be used to directly endanger others, and your freedom of action ends when it encroaches mine, the freedom of the press stops at the point where it willfully infringes upon other institutions.
However, Fainaru-Wada and Williams are asking for exactly what they refused the witnesses to the grand jury. When the men and women were ushered into the room to testify, they did so knowing that the testimony they provided would be sealed, heard and read only by the people in that room. The principle of the sanctity of grand-jury testimony enables the judicial system to prosecute crimes using the exact same tool--the promise of confidentiality--that Fainaru-Wada and Williams used in obtaining the information and publishing it.
Fainaru-Wada and Williams showed no concern for confidentiality when they wrote front-page articles using the testimony, signed contracts to write a book based on it, made the rounds of talk shows promoting it, and, I'd imagine, when they spend the money they made off of it. Principles have only come into play now that they’re the ones being asked questions in a courtroom.
Understand that these two men had a choice. When they were offered the testimony, it was still not public information.
...
The crime was committed when the leaker passed the testimony to the reporters. Let’s be clear about that. Neither of these men has committed a crime. Once the testimony was in their hands, they were legally free to use it in any manner they chose. But they were also free not to use it, to put the principle that grand-jury testimony is sealed above the pursuit of headlines, above the instinct to share all available information with the public, above profit. They were free then to make a principle the backbone of their story. No book deal would have come about, but they would also not be looking at jail time.
The freedoms that we have in this country are broad, but they are not absolute. In the same way that your freedom of speech can’t be used to directly endanger others, and your freedom of action ends when it encroaches mine, the freedom of the press stops at the point where it willfully infringes upon other institutions.