Grand juries have been used around the country in political witch hunts and fishing expeditions to go after law-abiding activists. The activists are called before the grand juries, which are ostensibly investigating actions by underground groups, and pressed to testify about their political activities. Activists, in turn, frequently refuse to answer questions about their political beliefs and political associations, citing First Amendment protections. Judges toss them in the slammer hoping some prison time will make them cave.
That’s quite similar to an article in Sports Illustrated today (I just read SI for the articles, I swear).
Two reporters at the San Francisco Chronicle were jailed Thursday for refusing to testify before a grand jury and reveal who gave them secret grand jury testimony from Barry Bonds. They’ll be behind bars for 18 months, or until they testify. If they stand their ground, and the grand jury expires, another grand jury can be convened.
Here’s a quote from one of the reporters:
“I’m supposed to keep my promises when people help me and take me at their word,” Williams said in court. “I do despair for our country if we go very far down this road, because no one will talk to reporters.”
Independent journalist Josh Wolf has resisted another grand jury on the same grounds.
Josh Wolf is an independent journalist and blogger who was jailed on August 1 when he refused to testify or turn over unpublished video out-takes to a federal grand jury investigating a July, 2005 anti-G8 demonstration. Josh was never convicted of a crime. He was held on civil contempt in an effort to coerce him to testify and turn over his unpublished work product to a federal grand jury. Josh was released on bail September 2 and is awaiting a decision from the 9th circuit court on the appeal of his civil contempt charge.
I’m highlighting these cases for two reasons. The first is fairly selfish. Grand juries are being used against activists. They’re being used against reporters protecting sources. They can certainly be used against reporters with activist sources. (Although something tells me a grand jury won’t be investigating Ed Bradley, even though he has interviewed, in person, so-called “eco-terrorists).
The second, and much more important, is that even if reporters are not called before a grand jury and forced to reveal their sources, these cases add to the growing chilling effect that already exists. Reporters will have to ask themselves if they’re willing to pay the price for investigative reporting. Using grand juries to punish reporters for doing their jobs creates a climate of fear and– if they are successful in compelling testimony– erodes the invaluable trust that must exist between reporters and sources.