I would love to see Roberts be held in contempt of court if she refuses to give up her source. I think the only “chilling effect” it would have would be one I would applaud. Reporters would no longer feel they are above the law!

Reporters do have a lot of protection when it comes to protecting sources, and there are shield laws in place. But it tends to fall apart for them when it is the court itself that has issued an information protection order and a reporter allows the information to be published. If the court turned a blind eye to that, it may as well stop issuing court orders on protecting information.

And its also very possible Canseco knew of the steroids first hand.

How much $$ (taxpayer dollars) has been spent in your best estimation to investigate steroids in MLB over the past several years?

“If they spend 1/3 of the amount of money Jeff Novisky has spent so far on this steroid witchhunt, they will find out the person(s) who leaked the info inside of 3 months.”

I wonder how people would feel if they saw that number plastered on newspapers across the country.

If she’s just protecting her source, then she’s in contempt as I understand it.

If she went so far as to ask someone in the court to unseal the info or even just to answer yes or no to any questions she may ask them (“So was A-Rod on the list or not, Mr Court Clerk?”) she’s got to be an accomplice of some sort to that person breaking the law. I don’t know exactly how in legal terms, but it’s got to be somehow.

I’m not saying she actually did this … just saying for example.

I would hope it would convince reporters to make sure they’re not protecting sources who got their information illegally.

If their source isn’t legal, they’ve got to be held responsible for being an accomplice (in some way shape or form) to the breaking of a law. Even if they’re exposing someone who broke a law.

If they know their source is on the right side of the law, then they’re entitled to write what they’re going to write and to protect their sources.

The language you quoted says what we both agree on: Roberts can be held in contempt for refusing a court order to name her sources.

This is different than prosecuting Roberts for being an accomplice.

“In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme
Court flatly rejected the claim that there is a First Amendment reporter!s privilege that allows reporters to resist giving evidence in a grand jury investigation being conducted in good faith. The Court engaged in a thorough analysis of the competing interests, balancing the public!s right to “every man!s evidence” as the grand jury fulfills its vital role in law enforcement against the alleged chilling effect that giving evidence would have on news gathering activities. The Court came down firmly on the side of requiring reporters, like everyone else, to heed the grand jury’s call for testimony.

On a record similar to the one in this case, the Court: held that the public interest in effective law enforcement outweighed the uncertain adverse effects from requiring those few reporters who have evidence of a crime to give evidence; recognized that courts should not be placed in the role of balancing law enforcement interests and the interests of reporters on a case-by-case basis; and concluded that courts should intervene only in
cases where it is shown that an investigation is being conducted in bad faith. Where, as here, there is no such showing, there is no First Amendment reporter’s privilege to resist giving evidence to a grand jury.”

She has NO 1st Amendment right to aid and abet in breaking the law.

I could see it going either way. GB7 posted an article about the California state judge who issued the sealing order that made it seem like the judge supported an investigation. She can’t bring Roberts into her court on her own though. I have no idea whether it makes legal or political sense for state or federal authorities to try to identify the source of the leak.

As an aside, I wonder if Roberts hopes to be brought into court and held in contempt? It would raise her profile even more. She could write another book.