Skip to main content

View Diary: Anonymous Government Officials Leak Defense of DOJ's Spying on Reporter (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're missing the point (0+ / 0-)

    The First Amendment is not absolute.  

    Perhaps it "should be" protected under the First Amendment, but the law currently carves out a specific set of instances where it's illegal to leak information AND illegal to then disseminate the leaked information.

    Now, if you hate the law, that's fine, but Holder et al did not break new ground by using it.  

    In a world where a journalist actually whines to Jay Carney because the press wasn't allowed in when Obama spoke to his campaign staff and then the mean old White House put the video on YouTube, I'm not sure I have a problem with laws specifying you can't tell a journalist where our weapons are and the journalist can't report where they are without breaking the law.

    The law is very specific, not an "arbitrary set of circumstances".  

    There already are codified exceptions to the First Amendment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    In no way am I advocating an ad hoc approach to the First Amendment.  If you had any idea of my background you might hear what I'm actually saying and not hear what is not there.

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

    by delphine on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:28:33 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So, which of those on the list (0+ / 0-)

      does this fall under? I bet you can't tell me.

      In no way am I advocating an ad hoc approach to the First Amendment.  If you had any idea of my background you might hear what I'm actually saying and not hear what is not there.
      You're advocating for a new exception based on no rule that you've explained. None of the exceptions to the first amendment cover this issue. None.
      I'm not sure I have a problem with laws specifying you can't tell a journalist where our weapons are and the journalist can't report where they are without breaking the law.
      Here's the thing, it is illegal to tell a journalist where certain weapons are, assuming that's it's classified information. That isn't under dispute. It's illegal to leak classified information, full stop. That means the person who leaked this did something illegal. What they are trying to charge the journalist with is not leaking information or telling people where the weapons were. They are charging him with abetting the leaker. That means that this would in no way be restricted only to people who leak information about weapons' locations, not at all. If this is upheld then it could be applied to any journalist who publishes classified information. That's the issue here.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:46:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site