PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on May 26, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
-
Britain intelligence shared sensitive photos of evidence to the Manchester bombings with our intelligence agencies. But someone leaked them to the WaPo, and they printed them. This has Britain all pissed off at us, and rightly so.
Should WaPo be protected by "Freedom of the Press" or should there be some repercussion to them and should there be a way to suppress news agencies from knowingly printing material that can be damaging to our national security?
-
Britain intelligence shared sensitive photos of evidence to the Manchester bombings with our intelligence agencies. But someone leaked them to the WaPo, and they printed them. This has Britain all pissed off at us, and rightly so.
Should WaPo be protected by "Freedom of the Press" or should there be some repercussion to them and should there be a way to suppress news agencies from knowingly printing material that can be damaging to our national security?
The liberal progressive activist judges in our courts right now will violate federal laws and put illegal bans on presidential orders, but if someone was to try to go after the WashPo they would immediately cry "First Admendment Rights!" and it would end right there.
The MSM has no conscience and doesn't give a flip about national security.
-
No. That runs counter to the idea of a free press.
-
It's the people actually doing the leaking that should be prosecuted. While I disagree that news outlets should be publishing classified information, it's going to be very difficult to prosecute them. It becomes a very slippery and dangerous slope when you start prosecuting a news outlet for publishing news.
-
The liberal progressive activist judges in our courts right now will violate federal laws and put illegal bans on presidential orders, but if someone was to try to go after the WashPo they would immediately cry "First Admendment Rights!" and it would end right there.
The MSM has no conscience and doesn't give a flip about national security.
The two aren't related. It would most definitely become a first amendment issue. If the government can start prosecuting news outlets for publishing information they receive, then that's the beginning of censorship. Stop people from leaking and the news outlets won't have anything to share. Sometimes news outlets do publish good information from whistleblowers that needs to be brought to light.
-
The two aren't related. It would most definitely become a first amendment issue. If the government can start prosecuting news outlets for publishing information they receive, then that's the beginning of censorship. Stop people from leaking and the news outlets won't have anything to share. Sometimes news outlets do publish good information from whistleblowers that needs to be brought to light.
They absolutely are related as the rule of law is the rule of law. These are two examples showing how activist judges will uphold the constitution (rightly so) as long as it fits their agenda, but then strike down a very plain language law because it doesn't fit their agenda.
The rule of law doesn't distinguish between political ideologies or parties and should never be adjudicated in that manner.
-
They absolutely are related as the rule of law is the rule of law. These are two examples showing how activist judges will uphold the constitution (rightly so) as long as it fits their agenda, but then strike down a very plain language law because it doesn't fit their agenda.
I'm still drinking coffee so maybe I'm not seeing the correlation. I don't see how a ruling on an executive order is in anyway related to prosecuting a news outlet for publishing information. I understand activist judges are going to rule however they want, legal or not.
The rule of law doesn't distinguish between political ideologies or parties and should never be adjudicated in that manner.
Agreed.
-
Let's also remember that just because a set of information is harmful to national security does not mean that the governed people shouldn't know about it.
-
Let's also remember that just because a set of information is harmful to national security does not mean that the governed people shouldn't know about it.
I don't like the term "governed people". Didn't we fight a revolution to change that? Doesn't the government work for us?
-
The people responsible for leaking classified, or secret information should be prosecuted to the extent of the law appropriate for the action.
ANY member of the press knowingly receiving stolen secret and/or classified information should be prosecuted for receiving stolen property.
-
I don't like the term "governed people". Didn't we fight a revolution to change that? Doesn't the government work for us?
We are a governed citizenry, but we are governed at our own consent, with the government's authority originating from us.
-
We are a governed citizenry, but we are governed at our own consent, with the government's authority originating from us.
If by "governed" you mean that we have to abide by a set of laws, I would agree. Here's the definition.
governed (past tense) · governed (past participle)
1.conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people):
"he was incapable of governing the country" ·
synonyms: rule · preside over · reign over · control · be in charge of · command ·
•control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events):
"the future of Jamaica will be governed by geography, not history"
synonyms: determine · decide · control · regulate · direct · rule · dictate ·
I am probably over reacting, but when I hear "governed", I want to go clean my AR. :)
-
If by "governed" you mean that we have to abide by a set of laws, I would agree. Here's the definition.
This is silly. What did you think I meant, that we were ruled by King Xenu?
-
This is silly. What did you think I meant, that we were ruled by King Xenu?
I take being a CITIZEN over being a SUBJECT very seriously. It is NOT silly.
-
I take being a CITIZEN over being a SUBJECT very seriously. It is NOT silly.
It is not silly, but you are! :D
Since we're being pedantic here, better check your definition of CITIZEN! China has citizens, after all. Grab your hammer and sickle!
-
I don't know the details, but typically it would be a weak link between evidence of the bombings and it being harmful to our national security.
I'm a John Sandford fan, and although it's fiction, it kind of makes sense that one of his main characters, a cop named Virgil Flowers, finds it amusing that police want to keep evidence secret. The bad guy already knows about the evidence so him knowing the police have it doesn't usually change anything.
-
It is not silly, but you are! :D
On that we can agree! ;D
Since we're being pedantic here, better check your definition of CITIZEN! China has citizens, after all. Grab your hammer and sickle!
I'd rather grab one of my Russian SKS's.....Comrade!
:)
-
Should WaPo be protected by "Freedom of the Press" or should there be some repercussion to them and should there be a way to suppress news agencies from knowingly printing material that can be damaging to our national security?
"Congress shall make no law...."
Are you proposing a change to the first amendment?
-
The recourse to far left rags like the Washington Post, and New York Times is to not read them, so they suffer financially. Not censorship. However, when the mega rich like Jeff Bezos, who owns Washpo, run them, they don't care about profitability. Bezos is content to have his little way of getting the far left, radical message out, and lose money doing it. He has more money than G*d anyway.
-
It's the people actually doing the leaking that should be prosecuted. While I disagree that news outlets should be publishing classified information, it's going to be very difficult to prosecute them. It becomes a very slippery and dangerous slope when you start prosecuting a news outlet for publishing news.
Agreed. For some reason, the FBI seems more intent on proving that Trump did business with Russia or that Russia was the source of fake new stories than they are with figuring out who is leaking information in our government.
-
Britain intelligence shared sensitive photos of evidence to the Manchester bombings with our intelligence agencies. But someone leaked them to the WaPo, and they printed them. This has Britain all pissed off at us, and rightly so.
Should WaPo be protected by "Freedom of the Press" or should there be some repercussion to them and should there be a way to suppress news agencies from knowingly printing material that can be damaging to our national security?
No, I do not believe there should be repercussions if the press publishes documents leaked by others. Even the President loved WikiLeaks when they published the democratic e-mails. I'll follow his lead on this. ;)
-
How pathetic are the parasites and snowflakes?
Just read the front page of the MSM rags and your answer is delivered every morning.
Everyone could simply skip that and have a newspaper delivered with a list of everything bad that happened in entire world and then print a Bold, Huge Type Face that says, "It Was Trump's Fault."
What a bunch of useless pansies.
-
How pathetic are the parasites and snowflakes?
Just read the front page of the MSM rags and your answer is delivered every morning.
Everyone could simply skip that and have a newspaper delivered with a list of everything bad that happened in entire world and then print a Bold, Huge Type Face that says, "It Was Trump's Fault."
What a bunch of useless pansies.
Yes, this is the same thing they did to Bush for eight years. It's really tiresome. Does the left or media have ANY critical thinking skills? Or do they just follow the same simple flow diagram leading to whatever President isn't their pick.
-
Yes, this is the same thing they did to Bush for eight years. It's really tiresome. Does the left or media have ANY critical thinking skills? Or do they just follow the same simple flow diagram leading to whatever President isn't their pick.
If a Libertarian party candidate is ever elected president, then according to that flow chart MSM news would stop entirely because they'd have entered an infinite loop.
Cool. Hopefully the flow chart is correct in that sense.
-
No. That runs counter to the idea of a free press.
So your idea of "free" is to permit them to commit crimes when they report something? To release classified information is illegal.
And I object to your use of the word "press" to describe them. They are entertainers at best.
-
So your idea of "free" is to permit them to commit crimes when they report something? To release classified information is illegal.
And I object to your use of the word "press" to describe them. They are entertainers at best.
I fear you have a dangerous misunderstanding of the First Amendment, and one that is in conflict with your view (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2147.msg38556#msg38556) that the government cannot be trusted.
-
So your idea of "free" is to permit them to commit crimes when they report something? To release classified information is illegal.
First amendment should trump all relevant statutes.
Most relevant statutes:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924)
The most relevant case regarding the press publishing classified material that made it to the Supreme Court was the Pentagon Papers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States)
Lots was left unresolved by the Pentagon Papers decision, and lots of people have written on those issues. One example: I have not read all through this next document, but it does discuss some of the relevant case law:
https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/Silver.pdf (https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/Silver.pdf)
One thing of note is that a malevolent entity generally does not want anyone to know that they have come into possession of classified material, which can allow a dangerous leak to persist, while a free press makes known that a leak exists.
Lastly, because the president is allowed to change the standards for "classified" material at any time and in any way, statutes that penalize violations of classified material provide a way for the president to create a broad class of ad hoc laws free of congressional or judicial constraints.