By RICK TELANDER
Chicago Sun-Times

It has been educational for me since a group of us sportswriters became involved in the freedom of the press issue presented by the federal subpoena of San Francisco Chronicle journalists Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. On Sept. 20, a number of us rallied for the men's defense at the federal courthouse in San Francisco.

It is nice that so many people agree with us that it would be crazy to have the two writers go to jail for up to 18 months, more than four times longer than any of the actual criminals in the BALCO case. But I keep running into at least as many people who feel the writers would only be getting what they deserve for messing with something as sacred as grand jury testimony. Some of the people who feel that way are fellow journalists, a particularly depressing fact.

There is never enough time to explain the nuances of this case to those who don't want to understand – that the grand jury testimony had been released earlier to lawyers defending the BALCO accused, that Mark and Lance have been charged with no crimes, that there are no national security issues at stake here, that what Mark and Lance have done is precisely what the Founding Fathers would have wanted them to do – that is, serve the public good by disseminating vital information (in this case, letting citizens know that our "national pastime" has been riddled with steroid takers) that otherwise would remain secret.

The Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was killed only days ago, likely by her own government, and journalists in Iraq and other troubled nations are in constant danger of being killed simply because of what they do. In freer nations journalists are being corralled by courts to do the bidding of irritated governments: that is, to tell the governments who their sources are, and thus stop unpleasant leaks, protect those in power, and chill investigative work generally. According to the polls I have read, fewer and fewer people in America even know what freedom of the press means, thinking the government ought to have some basic control over what journalists' write, photograph, say.

I have read the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution – all 45 words of it – a lot of times. And I just don't know how you can get much clearer than the fourteen words that say: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."

The mere thought of Mark and Lance in prison is sickening. How could any of us famously independent and self-righteous and tell-it-like-it-is sportswriters pen another column if those two were behind bars standing up for a principle that makes what we do possible?

I needed to talk to an expert, and I found one in Paul McMasters, the First Amendment ombudsman at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, a non-partisan organization that seeks to explain and protect our freedom of communication.

"There's a real genius to the wording of the First Amendment to make it as useful as possible for changing times," said McMasters. "It was written in a period before radio, television or telephones, so the press was really important. The press was a vehicle for change and persuasion. As a result the press is the only profession or calling singled out by the Constitution for special protection. Not lawyers, politicians, scientists. The press. Jefferson and Madison saw the press as being the bulwark of democracy, our independent source of information."

And so, I asked, what was the intent of the First Amendment?

"The intent was to insulate the press from the power of the government, the will of the majority, and the passion of the moment," said McMasters.

In other words, it was a freedom not to be messed with.

And yet the messing goes on and on.

Which is why we must be more vigilant than ever. Which is why the battle has just begun.

 Back to index