If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   Reporter may go to jail defending the right of the people to know that the accused had sex on top of the corpse   (heraldnews.suntimes.com) divider line 38
    More: Followup, Will County, contempt, double murder, contempt of court  
•       •       •

5498 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Sep 2013 at 3:22 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-20 03:07:51 PM
Stiff penalty.
 
2013-09-20 03:20:17 PM
Kinney told him that if the documents did not reveal his source, Hosey would have to sign an affidavit telling him who have him the records, when and how.

Editing is dead.
 
2013-09-20 03:22:36 PM
The reporter is farked unless the Sun-Times covers the fines.
 
2013-09-20 03:24:21 PM
I believe there's a song about that.
 
2013-09-20 03:25:09 PM

dahmers love zombie: Kinney told him that if the documents did not reveal his source, Hosey would have to sign an affidavit telling him who have him the records, when and how.

Editing is dead.


That one I'd give a pass on. That's a fat-finger h->g, and a spellchecker wouldn't have caught it.

As someone who occasionally copyedits (with my very own eyeballs), I will say those types of errors are the hardest to catch.

Also; needs Oxford comma.
 
2013-09-20 03:26:13 PM
Are journalists in the US completely above the law, like Lethal Weapon "Diplomatic Immunity" style, or do they just think they are?
 
2013-09-20 03:26:42 PM

slayer199: The reporter is farked unless the Sun-Times covers the fines.


I thought that the courts more or less could not compel reporters to reveal their confidential sources.
 
2013-09-20 03:30:49 PM
That's some tainted love.
 
2013-09-20 03:30:52 PM
"Over my dead body" is meant to be metaphorical.
 
2013-09-20 03:31:17 PM

Endive Wombat: slayer199: The reporter is farked unless the Sun-Times covers the fines.

I thought that the courts more or less could not compel reporters to reveal their confidential sources.


In some states they are protected, in others they aren't. There is no protection in federal court.
 
2013-09-20 03:31:56 PM

uncleacid: That's some tainted love.


See above song link. ;)
 
2013-09-20 03:32:05 PM
Does this judge hate freedom or what?
 
2013-09-20 03:33:48 PM
Also; needs Oxford comma.

Generally AP style doesn't use Oxford commas.
 
2013-09-20 03:34:28 PM

xria: Are journalists in the US completely above the law, like Lethal Weapon "Diplomatic Immunity" style, or do they just think they are?


Endive Wombat: slayer199: The reporter is farked unless the Sun-Times covers the fines.

I thought that the courts more or less could not compel reporters to reveal their confidential sources.

It's a common misconception that there is some sort of basic "reporter's privilege" akin  to Dr.-Patient, or Attorney client privilege that shields reporters from having to testify about who their sources are.  Some state have passed limited jounalist shield laws but most still allow a court to compel a reporter to tesify if there is no other method of getting the desired information,

Now on the flip side it is a tenet of journalistic ethics that you never give up a source you have promised confidentiality to, no matter what, and if the judge sends you to jail for contempt, so be it.  Indefinite prison sentences for contempt (IE going to jail until you comply) are a thign fo the past, and at this point the judge can only hold you until it becomes clear you will never comply with his order at which point htey have to either release you or have you criminally charged with contempt of court entitling you to a trial and generally carrying a maximum of 180 days in prison upon conviction
 
2013-09-20 03:35:06 PM

xria: Are journalists in the US completely above the law, like Lethal Weapon "Diplomatic Immunity" style, or do they just think they are?


They are not but they should be.  Democracy requires an informed electorate and forcing the press to give up sources limits the presses ability to keep the public informed
 
2013-09-20 03:38:58 PM

Aidan: dahmers love zombie: Kinney told him that if the documents did not reveal his source, Hosey would have to sign an affidavit telling him who have him the records, when and how.

Also; needs Oxford comma.


The records are named when and how?
 
2013-09-20 03:39:37 PM
File an affidavit swearing that someone named Gerald Kinney gave him the reports.

Only met him the one time, in a dark parking lot, wouldn't recognize him again.
 
2013-09-20 03:41:59 PM

Cheron: xria: Are journalists in the US completely above the law, like Lethal Weapon "Diplomatic Immunity" style, or do they just think they are?

They are not but they should be.  Democracy requires an informed electorate and forcing the press to give up sources limits the presses ability to keep the public informed


Difficulty: define "Journalist" in such a way as to not exclude any legitimate gatherer and publisher of information, but narrowly enough to prevent a bad guy from setting up a blog and then refusing to tesify on the grounds of reportorial privilege
 
2013-09-20 03:43:11 PM

Sojianna: Also; needs Oxford comma.

Generally AP style doesn't use Oxford commas.


But it looks weeeeeeeird...
 
2013-09-20 03:54:48 PM
I don't get it. Even if the reporter does say how he got the info, so what?

Reporter - "I read it from a police report left on a desk at the station."

Judge - "Um, OK. Um, I guess we are done here."

Then what?
 
2013-09-20 03:56:37 PM

DoctorWhat: The records are named when and how?


Yes, he's on first now.
 
2013-09-20 04:00:05 PM
Threesome with Bernie?  Rigor Mortis FTW.
 
2013-09-20 04:04:51 PM

boyvoyeur: I don't get it. Even if the reporter does say how he got the info, so what?

Reporter - "I read it from a police report left on a desk at the station."

Judge - "Um, OK. Um, I guess we are done here."

Then what?


I'd guess he's most likely protecting a PO or a civilian police employee. If he simply saw a misplaced police report, he probably would have said that straight away, or even in the article itself.
 
2013-09-20 04:08:02 PM
Undertaker: "Well Sheriff, you see it was that medicine we drank during prohibition and well the Whore was looking mighty fine in my shop and we forgot about the corpse being on the table."
Sheriff: "That medicine was 50% rubbing alcohol and then cocaine, heroin and semen."

i.imgur.com
Quickdraw on Hulu.
 
2013-09-20 04:12:38 PM
"The people have a right to know"

Yeah, about that.  The people would have found out everything once these POS's went to trial...but then you would not have had an "exclusive" story.

People's right to know, my ass - you wanted page views, rot in jail.
 
2013-09-20 04:14:30 PM

danielscissorhands: I believe there's a song about that.


Can't open the link from work...is it the classic Forgotten Rebels song?

*peeked at profile*...yep, probably
 
2013-09-20 04:24:05 PM
The reporter is defending the right of the prosecution to prejudice the grand jury, which is stupid. He is not protecting someone exposing exposing wrongdoing, but someone doing wrong.
 
2013-09-20 04:32:51 PM
As far as I can tell, the court has no real reason to need to know who leaked that report, they just want whoever it was to be punished. And since nobody admitted to leaking it, they will punish the reporter instead. The police need to do a better job of keeping information secure.
 
2013-09-20 04:38:57 PM

Endive Wombat: I thought that the courts more or less could not compel reporters to reveal their confidential sources.


That's what I thought...
 
2013-09-20 04:49:44 PM

Iowan73: As far as I can tell, the court has no real reason to need to know who leaked that report, they just want whoever it was to be punished. And since nobody admitted to leaking it, they will punish the reporter instead. The police need to do a better job of keeping information secure.


Other than that whole "putting a gag order on everyone (keeping certain salacious details out of the public eye) so as to not taint the jury pool and then having one side violate it," thing, you might be correct.
 
2013-09-20 05:33:33 PM

Iowan73: As far as I can tell, the court has no real reason to need to know who leaked that report, they just want whoever it was to be punished. And since nobody admitted to leaking it, they will punish the reporter instead. The police need to do a better job of keeping information secure.


And I'm guessing the defense wants it to try for a mistrial.
 
2013-09-20 05:35:13 PM

Literally Addicted: danielscissorhands: I believe there's a song about that.

Can't open the link from work...is it the classic Forgotten Rebels song?

*peeked at profile*...yep, probably


Yep... or maybe it's a rickroll.
 
2013-09-20 05:45:45 PM

oryx: The reporter is defending the right of the prosecution to prejudice the grand jury, which is stupid. He is not protecting someone exposing exposing wrongdoing, but someone doing wrong.


Facts=Poison. Got it.
 
2013-09-20 06:23:59 PM

Magorn: Now on the flip side it is a tenet of journalistic ethics that you never give up a source you have promised confidentiality to, no matter what, and if the judge sends you to jail for contempt, so be it. Indefinite prison sentences for contempt (IE going to jail until you comply) are a thign fo the past, and at this point the judge can only hold you until it becomes clear you will never comply with his order at which point htey have to either release you or have you criminally charged with contempt of court entitling you to a trial and generally carrying a maximum of 180 days in prison upon conviction


Somebody needs to inform H. Beatty Chadwick of this.
 
2013-09-20 06:43:35 PM
Oh this is an easy fix. The democrats can just pass a law re-defining what a journalist is and thereby stripping this reporter (and the rest of america) of their free speech rights.
 
2013-09-20 07:02:29 PM
pueblonative:

Somebody needs to inform H. Beatty Chadwick of this.

Interesting, lemme check that out:

"Although never charged with a crime, H. Beatty Chadwick spent fourteen years of his life in jail"

Holy Fark!
 
2013-09-20 10:07:40 PM

OnlyM3: Oh this is an easy fix. The democrats can just pass a law re-defining what a journalist is and thereby stripping this reporter (and the rest of america) of their free speech rights.


You're really, really precious.
 
2013-09-21 01:14:30 PM
Having sex on top of a corpse.  Are you not supposed to do that?

i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report