0
Kennedy

Reporter is Enemy of the State for Reporting

Recommended Posts

Things can change quickly if nobody pays attention to the little things.
Like a government entity(the IRS) targeting political parties who oppose the political agenda of the party in power at present.
How about targeting the press when they report things that make the government look inept for not keeping a handle on their secrets?
Sounds like an attack on freedom of speech.
How about a push toward rewriting the constitution and infringing on individual rights?
Taking a little here,and a little there can add up quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fortunately, no; it can't.

Fortunately the writers of the Consitution understood that even though they fully intended the document to change over time, they made it incredibly difficult and required incredible hoops to jump through in order for an Amendment to become ratified.

So, while some minor interpretations can go into effect, it is another thing altogether (possibly even impossible) to fundamentally change something like freedom of speech.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kennedy

This is a question of how much will we let the Feds get away with. Not being charged is not an indicator that all is well. If police out trackers on your cars, cameras to watch your house, surveillance details on your family, and searched your home and work, and talked to everyone you know asking about you, but you were never charged, would that be cool just because you were never indicted? Especially when you haven't committed a crime and the best they can do is threaten you with conspirator charges that will never pass judicial review?



If the reporter had passively received the classified information, then a thorough investigation into that reporter's communications and whereabouts would probably not be justified. In this case, the reporter did not receive the information passively.

In this case, the reporter was concerned in the commission of the crime being investigated. Given that the motive to incite the crime was to write about an issue that might "meaningfully contribute to public debate," (to quote the American Constitution Society blog post linked to upthread), the reporter should be immune from prosecution, but there's no reason to refrain from fully investigating the crime just because one of the parties is a reporter.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You only address the part of my post regarding the constitution.
What about the IRS going after conservatives?
How about trying to intimidate the press?
And do not forget how fast the governments of other countries have radically changed in recent history.
Things can happen,and they can happen quickly.
The champions of the nanny state are already waging war on individual freedoms at this moment,and have been for sometime now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I addressed your outrageous question about the First.

I don't the time to address every tin-foil hat conspiracy issue since the dawn of time including hypotheticals of what may come.

I also don't really think anyone wants to read it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

Quote

I am with the rest of them
This is bs
The leaker is fair game
The reporter should not be



How do you prove an evidence trail of leaking from top secret source to the press, if you don't include the press receiving the document?



Or how about bloggers that republished it? The leaker published to the reporter. The reporter published to Fox News. Fox News published to the world. Bloggers republished to the world. Etc.

Let's go back a couple of years. [Url]http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4065128#4065128[/url]

Compare the Raymond Davis situation with the present situation. A couple of years ago, we had the press knowingly and deliberately spreading the governmental lies. I take it that the New York Times was simply doing what was in its best interest. (As Robinson wrote, editorial boards will extend courtesy in some situations). But here is a mea culpa by the NY Times describing how their cover of the President's cover was blown. [Url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html?_r=4&emc=na&[/url]
[Quote]The New York Times had agreed to temporarily withhold information about Mr. Davis’s ties to the agency at the request of the Obama administration, which argued that disclosure of his specific job would put his life at risk. Several foreign news organizations have disclosed some aspects of Mr. Davis’s work with the C.I.A.

That's the press playing ball. That's the press misinforming the public of the facts in order to sway perception of the person and events. That's also called "propaganda." I take it the Admin didn't mind a little back scratching there.

This is what is so disappointing. During this admin we've seen the press LYING on behalf of the government. And we've seen the government CRACKING DOWN on those who are putting out accurate information. It's downright Nixonian.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]
Fortunately the writers of the Consitution understood that even though they fully intended the document to change over time, they made it incredibly difficult and required incredible hoops to jump through in order for an Amendment to become ratified.

So, while some minor interpretations can go into effect, it is another thing altogether (possibly even impossible) to fundamentally change something like freedom of speech



Problem is, that ain't how it works. Today, the 9th Circuit struck down Arizona's ban on abortions after 20 weeks because it was Unconstitutional. That law was signed over a year ago. So in the last year plenty of people were affected (and this is a very quick disposition). So the law gets struck down, and life goes on.

And it's interesting - you argue quite a bit for restrictions on mentally ill and guns. Things that have already been called Unconstitutional. You know how it works and how politicians will say "screw the constitution, I'm doing it, anyway" and then blame the courts for overturning "the will of the people." Happens all the time.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not tin-foil that is used for hats.
It's aluminum foil that the crazies are reportedly using for their hats.
Since aluminum is linked to increased risk of alzheimer's, it could be a bad fashion choice for good brain function.
I like the way hard left wing types like to fling insults and labels at people when they do not agree with them,or if they say things that they do not like to hear.
Lefties are just as fucked up as the righties it seems.
Being neither left nor right,I find it amusing when either side resorts to ridicule or insults to attack and belittle all who do not drink their political koolaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

Fortunately, no; it can't.

Fortunately the writers of the Consitution understood that even though they fully intended the document to change over time, they made it incredibly difficult and required incredible hoops to jump through in order for an Amendment to become ratified.

So, while some minor interpretations can go into effect, it is another thing altogether (possibly even impossible) to fundamentally change something like freedom of speech.



The Constitution needs to be followed and honored for your point to be valid

This has not been the case for decades
Regardless of the party in charge

Point is, intimidation and threat is being used NOW to stiffle free speech
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

Point is, intimidation and threat is being used NOW to stiffle free speech



Oh please...

The US has the freest speech on the planet and that isn't just me blowing smoke.

You have FAR more to worry about from some PC busybody at your company than you do from the government when it comes to free speech.

Good lord. If free speech was as big an issue as you guys are making it out to be would 90% of the talking heads on radio be allowed to roam free? Get real.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

***Point is, intimidation and threat is being used NOW to stiffle free speech



Oh please...

The US has the freest speech on the planet and that isn't just me blowing smoke.

You have FAR more to worry about from some PC busybody at your company than you do from the government when it comes to free speech.

Good lord. If free speech was as big an issue as you guys are making it out to be would 90% of the talking heads on radio be allowed to roam free? Get real.

The IRS scandal is about just that
Free speech

Roll your eyes if you will but you will be fooling yourself
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not "the government." It's not. Try to spin it any way you want to, but it's going to come down to a couple of guys who got over excited doing their job.

Further, nobody's speech was hindered. Their tax exempt status was questioned. I'll admit it was because of the name of their organizations, but if I was tasked with finding errors in files of tax exempt companies, I think a good place to start would be sorting them by names of companies who are obviously against filing taxes.

Yeah, it was stupid. That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to inhibit free speech.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

That is not "the government." It's not. Try to spin it any way you want to, but it's going to come down to a couple of guys who got over excited doing their job.

Further, nobody's speech was hindered. Their tax exempt status was questioned. I'll admit it was because of the name of their organizations, but if I was tasked with finding errors in files of tax exempt companies, I think a good place to start would be sorting them by names of companies who are obviously against filing taxes.

Yeah, it was stupid. That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to inhibit free speech.



You are fooling yourself or you are not following the stories
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Keep it up and they might remove your posts.
:):D



and audit his taxes

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]The US has the freest speech on the planet and that isn't just me blowing smoke.



No. But that"s like taking a place with the cleanest air and blowing smoke. Hey, it still may be the cleanest but it aint clean.

You are justifying the chilling of speech by saying "it's worse elsewhere." Hey, we've also got the most painless executions on the planet, too.

[Reply]You have FAR more to worry about from some PC busybody at your company than you do from the government when it comes to free speech.



The PC busybody cannot jail me. Cannot indict me. Cannot get a warrant to investigate me. Cannot get an IRS audit.

[Reply]Good lord. If free speech was as big an issue as you guys are making it out to be would 90% of the talking heads on radio be allowed to roam free? Get real.



Do talk radio guys do investigative journalism? No. They offer opinions. They talk about the stuff that the journalists are finding. Different things entirely.

Compare this to the Plame matter. Scooter Libby was convicted. Karl Rove faced some serious stuff. But folks like Russert, Bob Novak, Matthew Cooper, bob Woodwars and other journalists were subpoenaed to testify in trial and to give depositions. But they didn't face charges. They only faced the possibility of sanction by the court for refusing to reveal their sources (Rove signed a waiver that meant that he could be revealed as a leak source).

Here the admin isn't looking to ask questions. This admin is spying on journalists to get to the leaks. And bringing charges against the journalists. In fact, I recall that during the Plame case, you thought it was an act of treason for the government to try to apply life-destroying sanctions on those who opposed the Admin.

So I'll ask this: what if it was Bush pulling this stuff? Going after journalists and pursuing criminal charges against them for publishing leaks? History has demonstrated that the leaker is punished.

Why is this "Nixonian?" I'll refer to the famed Enemies List memo: "stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." Recall that "tax audits" were mentioned as ways to harass political enemies - only the IRS was not actually used on political opponents.

Note: Lois Lerner - the tax-exempt department head - is invoking the 5th in response to Congressional subpoena. Maybe it stopped there. Maybe it didn't.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

[Reply]You have FAR more to worry about from some PC busybody at your company than you do from the government when it comes to free speech.


The PC busybody cannot jail me. Cannot indict me. Cannot get a warrant to investigate me. Cannot get an IRS audit.



Can easily trash your reputation and get you fired. Easily.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/opinion/bruni-one-schools-catholic-teaching.html
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why is this "Nixonian?" I'll refer to the famed Enemies List memo: "stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." Recall that "tax audits" were mentioned as ways to harass political enemies - only the IRS was not actually used on political opponents.


Why not just go full Godwin and invoke Hitler? You know you want to? ;)
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites