www.espn.com
You can go to jail for contempt of court even in a civil case. And the real reason all this is happening is because her boss ran her mouth a lot more than she should have. Bryant probably has a good case here.
Would issuing a retraction clarifying that point not work?
He has a case against WOlfe also. Not sure how good it is, but shocking that the "news" article defending Wolfe didn't actually mention what the alleged defamatory statements were:
If I'm Wolfe I'll be damned if I would go to jail because my big mouthed boss couldn't keep her mouth shut because she was looking for some publicity for her paper in front of an audience. I'd tell her to pack her knickers and toothbrush because she was sharing a cell with me
Right to face the accuser is in the context of a criminal trial. Also, literally every real reporter in this country uses unnamed sources and are expected to protect the identity of those sources. Beyond that, freedom of the press is also one of the principles of this country.
She should not give up her sources. Unnamed sources are some of the most important people in this country. They help find truth.
Freedom of the press doesn't grant a privilege to refuse to disclose sources or material. I think most states have granted some sort of qualified privilege.
They are. But at the same time, you can't just slander someone and claim "unnamed sources" as a defense when they sue you (exception for former star running backs who may or may not have killed 5 hookers). Somewhere, there has to be a check and balance between "freedom of the press" and just letting the press abuse that freedom to make baseless attacks on anyone they want to.
The contempt arises out of the former Governor's state court civil case for defamation. A witness who refuses to follow a court order such as a subpoena or an order to show cause may be held in contempt of court. A circuit judge has authority to jail an obstinate witness or defendant who is found in civil contempt of court.
Should White have said what she did, probably not.....Was she wrong, probably not.Sorry if Germans, looks like it was published on September 25. It's a long read, but enjoyable so far.
Anna Wolfe won a Pulitzer for a Favre scandal story, now she could face jail
After exposing Mississippi welfare fraud, a journalist and her publication face the former governor's wrath.
This. Bryant has to prove she had knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. That's tough to prove if she can hide behind a confidential source (i.e. "I just reported what my confidential source told me"). If, for example, she turns over the confidential info and it doesn't support what she reported, then Bryant's case is much easier to prove.
I hear what you are saying, but the dishonesty in journalism today is unfathomable. There's certainly no reason to trust journalist (or anyone else).
Sad to say, I trust politicians less.....I feel like there is a shred of truth in all reports about politicians, no matter how slanted.
Should she have kept her mouth shut? Absolutely yes. Was she wrong? Maybe. If she wasn’t, she should have no trouble defending herself in this case.
She did not apologize or “walk back”. She said she “misspoke” and “Bryant hasn’t been charged .” Very big difference.
^^^ This is true. In this case, Bryant was setting up his post-Governor future by currying favor with a well-healed benefactor. The payoff was not directly related to the funny bidness with the welfare money. It was in the post-Governor opportunities that would flow out of the questionable arrangement. Where things got sideways was in the effort to tie the Governor directly to misspent funds.
