First amendment under attack

[sfc 0]

Quote

Grabbing the phone records of the reporter in question does nothing to bar him/her from publishing anything. Their freedom to print is not abridged by doing so. It's a common sense investigative thing that should be done everytime information is compromised in such a manner so the traitor who leaked the info may be found and prosecuted.

I strongly oppose using reporters phone records for anything relating to leaks, the government can and should use the call records of the traitor after obtaining a warrent, but to simply monitor reporters phone lines because someone might call them with a leak is wickedly wrong, 1st and 4th are being ignored.
A free press requires freedom to operate. Sure catch the leaker, but don't damage the free press. The governments job is to prevent leaks, not persecute the press who report them.
There are cases where the press hold off on stories, and I'm sure that there are cases (we never hear about) where a responsible reporter does quash a story on the request of the administration for security reasons.
This administration is really beginning to trample all over the constitution. I do not trust politicians, so we have to have a free press, look at all the politicians from all sides that have been convicted or indicted or implicated in corruption, they cannot be trusted, it is as simple as that, and their politics makes no difference.

[billvon 2,476]

>Grabbing the phone records of the reporter in question does
>nothing to bar him/her from publishing anything.

Requiring your car to be equipped with a government-mandated GPS device/recorder to track your speeds would not physically prevent you from speeding. Does this mean you would have no objection to it? After all, if you have nothing to hide, and do not break the law, you have nothing to fear. And many vehicles already have such a system, so it's nothing new.

That way, when someone in your area is hit and killed by a car, they can pull every recorder in the area and see if you were speeding, or hit the brakes suddenly. That way, the murderer can be found and prosecuted - surely a good thing.

> It's a common sense investigative thing that should be done
> everytime information is compromised in such a manner so the
>traitor who leaked the info may be found and prosecuted.

A good take on this from the DOJ:

--------
Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues. This policy statement is thus intended to provide protection for the news media from forms of compulsory process, whether civil or criminal, which might impair the news gathering function.
--------

An excerpt from the decision in the Pentagon Papers case:

----------------
In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

[In this case] we are asked to hold that despite the First Amendment's emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of "national security." . . . To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.

The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes - great man and great Chief Justice that he was - when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists:

"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government."
--------------------------------------

BTW the Pentagon Papers were secret DoD papers leaked to the Times. They showed that the government sought to secretly expand the scope of the Vietnam War. Publication of these papers was claimed to damage the US by increasing the 'credibility gap' seen in the administration, and thus threaten the war effort. Comments from Nixon when he heard the report had been published by the Times:
"people have gotta be put to the torch for this sort of thing...let's get the son-of-a-bitch in jail."

[TheAnvil 0]

Perhaps one of us misread the article - could have been me, I don't recall. I don't support monitoring all phone lines of all reporters all the time. I do support the government snagging the phone records of a reporter who published information leaked to him or her as a means of catching the sonofabitch who leaked the information, if that information was indeed classified.

I support a free press and do not see how such investigative actions taken in the wake of a leak in any way damage the institution.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[racer42 0]

Quote

>Its about time reporters where held to account for assisting in the
>leaking of classified information.

Yep. Time to ressurect the Plumbers.

Ummm...haven't we already gone through this part of the paranoia parade?

Just as a point of reference.."Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now then..how come the Amendment immediately following the First one, ( that would be the Second One ) is resolutely and undeniably without argument unmutable, unchangeable and unarguable?

What happened to the Conservative champions of individual freedom and liberty? What are we fighting to preserve?

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock

[sfc 0]

Quote

I support a free press and do not see how such investigative actions taken in the wake of a leak in any way damage the institution.

To use a reporters phone records would undoubtedly impact that reporters ability to gather information using the phone, as people would be reluctant to use the phone to contact the reported.
This will prevent some information being obtained thus imparing their ability to report freely to us, I think this is directly in conflict with the 1st.
The people that crafted this were very clear, we have an administration that is chipping away at it. Reading the text (below) I see no exceptions for national security or helping catch criminals, it is unconditional, period.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

[racer42 0]

Quote

Quote

I support a free press and do not see how such investigative actions taken in the wake of a leak in any way damage the institution.

To use a reporters phone records would undoubtedly impact that reporters ability to gather information using the phone, as people would be reluctant to use the phone to contact the reported.
This will prevent some information being obtained thus imparing their ability to report freely to us, I think this is directly in conflict with the 1st.
The people that crafted this were very clear, we have an administration that is chipping away at it. Reading the text (below) I see no exceptions for national security or helping catch criminals, it is unconditional, period.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Exactly. I wonder were there any lessons learned from Watergate? Other than maybe this one...NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 US 713 (1971).

We are supposed to be a nation of laws not ideologies.

We've seen how it starts. How does it end?

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock

[sfc 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I support a free press and do not see how such investigative actions taken in the wake of a leak in any way damage the institution.

To use a reporters phone records would undoubtedly impact that reporters ability to gather information using the phone, as people would be reluctant to use the phone to contact the reported.
This will prevent some information being obtained thus imparing their ability to report freely to us, I think this is directly in conflict with the 1st.
The people that crafted this were very clear, we have an administration that is chipping away at it. Reading the text (below) I see no exceptions for national security or helping catch criminals, it is unconditional, period.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Exactly. I wonder were there any lessons learned from Watergate? Other than maybe this one...NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 US 713 (1971).

We are supposed to be a nation of laws not ideologies.

We've seen how it starts. How does it end?

It appears that the politicians have learnt the most from watergate.

[avenfoto 0]

Quote

Not at all. I do not support traitors who leak classified information hiding behind the first ammendment

so you are for the prosecution of dick cheney..no wait.. it was gwb who allowed the plame bit to leak out...

and this was after he promised to "get" whoever leaked that info... knowing it was himself...

so it was bs, and he knew it..thats known as lying

[masterrig 1]

Quote

So now the administration is going after reporters, you have to wonder with almost complete lack of oversight, arbitrary classification of material to support the administrations political gains where this is leading...

Very sad :(

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/prosecuting.reporters.ap/index.html

______________________________________

Something needs to be done about the media!
F'rinstance: When we first went into Afghanistan looking for Osama. Geraldo Rivera, did a live broadcast while with our troops. the location was supposed to be 'hush-hush'. Geraldo, gave exact coordinates where he and the troops were! That is just one example of the media.
I realize, the aspects of our 'freedom of speech' but, something like telling the world where our troops are, is wrong. Yes, we have 'freedom of speech' but, there's something that goes along with it... responsibility.


Chuck

[TheAnvil 0]

Get some evidence and get back to us.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

I don't see the conflict at all. The reporter would still be able to report and publish what he wanted to. Government censorship would not be occurring. Nabbing the phone records of someone who came by information that was not to be released seems like a basic step that should be taken in tracking down the traitorous sob that leaked the info. I don't see how that would be abridging the freedom of the press at all.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

The infringement would be that they'd actually have to back up their information and be sure it wasn't classified.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,476]

> . . .and be sure it wasn't classified.

Imprisoning members of the free press for printing something the government considers classified would be one of the worst abuses of governmental power this country has ever seen. If we are willing to sacrifice this freedom for security, we are doomed as a free nation.

Again, from a decision by the US Supreme Court:

----------
The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.
-----------

[TheAnvil 0]

I disagree. No onus to do so is placed upon a reporter. If a reporter publishes an article and it contains information the gov't considered to be classified, then the gov't should make the attempt to learn who the loser was that leaked the information. Nobody is calling for locking up the reporter. All that's being looked at is how the reporter came into possession of the information. I fail to see how that is abridging the freedom of the reporter to publish information.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> . . .and be sure it wasn't classified.

Imprisoning members of the free press for printing something the government considers classified would be one of the worst abuses of governmental power this country has ever seen. If we are willing to sacrifice this freedom for security, we are doomed as a free nation.

Again, from a decision by the US Supreme Court:

----------
The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.
-----------

So, you have no problems with the press publishing troop movement orders? How about information on base security patrols? Maybe nuclear weapons codes?

BULLSHIT! - there have to be checks and balances for mass media just as for fed.gov.

The problem is that the reporters want the next big scoop - they don't care if the information is true or false, helpful or harmful. They want that monster scoop that will get them the Pulitzer.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

...... Nobody is calling for locking up the reporter. ....

Actually I believe that Gonzales is indeed talking about prosecuting reporters.

On the talk show, when asked if journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information, Gonzales responded, "There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility."

[sfc 0]

Quote

The problem is that the reporters want the next big scoop - they don't care if the information is true or false, helpful or harmful. They want that monster scoop that will get them the Pulitzer.

The real problem is that the government cannot keep secrets, whether it be troop movements (what do you expect if you invite a reporter to the front line and give him an open channel?) or the record of vets SSN or whatever.
Once the reporter has the info then it is too late, if a reporter can get it then so can the bad guys.
We need to focus on the root of the problem not the symptoms.

[billvon 2,476]

>So, you have no problems with the press publishing troop movement
>orders? How about information on base security patrols? Maybe
>nuclear weapons codes?

If those things are leaked, then the leakers should go to jail - because they signed an agreement to NOT release that information. Reporters/bloggers/people by the watercooler signed no such agreement.

>there have to be checks and balances for mass media just as for
>fed.gov.

Nope. The potential for abuse is just too great. If you cannot publish an article that might undermine the war effort, then any criticism of the war effort falls under that umbrella.

>The problem is that the reporters want the next big scoop - they
>don't care if the information is true or false, helpful or harmful. They
>want that monster scoop that will get them the Pulitzer.

Yep, that's often the way reporting works. Just like Exxon wants to make billions, whether they help the environment or not. Just like authors want to write bestsellers, whether they generate controversy or not. Just like biotech companies want to invent the next big drug, whether it's to cure cancer, grow hair on your head or cause an abortion. It's the american way.

I'm going to have to go with the US Supreme Court on this one.

[racer42 0]

Quote

Quote

> . . .and be sure it wasn't classified.

Imprisoning members of the free press for printing something the government considers classified would be one of the worst abuses of governmental power this country has ever seen. If we are willing to sacrifice this freedom for security, we are doomed as a free nation.

Again, from a decision by the US Supreme Court:

----------
The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.
-----------

So, you have no problems with the press publishing troop movement orders? How about information on base security patrols? Maybe nuclear weapons codes?

BULLSHIT! - there have to be checks and balances for mass media just as for fed.gov.

The problem is that the reporters want the next big scoop - they don't care if the information is true or false, helpful or harmful. They want that monster scoop that will get them the Pulitzer.

Where do you think the reporter would be getting this information?

And where is it written in the Constitution that there has to be "checks and balances" on the mass media.?

Look at who owns the mass media. Should there be checks and balances on Time-Warner, Fox, Disney,Cox,Clear Channel,Dow-Jones etc??

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If those things are leaked, then the leakers should go to jail - because they signed an agreement to NOT release that information. Reporters/bloggers/people by the watercooler signed no such agreement.

Isn't that exactly what Vinnie is saying in his other post? Going after the person doing the leaking and not the reporter?

I still disagree, in general. The reporter should have to vet the information that he's reporting. Half of the problem with mass media today is that they DON'T verify any information...they just slap it on the presses and let 'em run.

And, to answer the other question... If I were to knowingly relase classified information, I would go to jail... why shouldn't the reporters, if they do it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

And, to answer the other question... If I were to knowingly relase classified information, I would go to jail... why shouldn't the reporters, if they do it?

The reporter doesn't have a clearance and has made no agreement to keep certain information secret. You do have a clearance (presumably) and have agreed to be accountable for such information. That's a pretty big difference.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,476]

>The reporter should have to vet the information that he's reporting.

Most are required to by their employers. Some aren't. Which is fine; it's a free country. You can choose to listen to any news source you like.

>why shouldn't the reporters, if they do it?

Because the reporter's right to free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. You can agree to give that up by signing a security agreement, or a non-disclosure agreement. Reporters do not.

[Shawndiver 0]

Quote

Quote

And, to answer the other question... If I were to knowingly relase classified information, I would go to jail... why shouldn't the reporters, if they do it?

The reporter doesn't have a clearance and has made no agreement to keep certain information secret. You do have a clearance (presumably) and have agreed to be accountable for such information. That's a pretty big difference.
_______________________________________________


So, if I find a briefcase next to the road stuffed with classified information, scan it and post it up on a public web site, I should expect there to be no consequences as I have not made any such agreement? Just curious.

_________________

• Quote

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And, to answer the other question... If I were to knowingly relase classified information, I would go to jail... why shouldn't the reporters, if they do it?

The reporter doesn't have a clearance and has made no agreement to keep certain information secret. You do have a clearance (presumably) and have agreed to be accountable for such information. That's a pretty big difference.
_______________________________________________


So, if I find a briefcase next to the road stuffed with classified information, scan it and post it up on a public web site, I should expect there to be no consequences as I have not made any such agreement? Just curious.

That's the way I see it, though I do think intent might figure into the government's ability to prosecute you.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

From USC Title 18:

Quote

§ 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Looks like they COULD conceivably slam the reporter as well, although it seems a bit unclear.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706