4 ms·

Is this actually legal? I mean, these are public institutions funded by the people of the US. They should be allowed to communicate, no?

• josho 10y ago
  Canada went through this a few years ago with a conservative government. It wasn't that scientists were not allowed to communicate with the public, it was that they had to work through the PR department. The PR arm of the institutions would delay, filter, and even edit publications that touched on sensitive areas (eg. Anything remotely connected to climate change--like even fisheries related data). Fortunately, Canada came through this period. But we did see the closure of research stations and destruction of scientific data. So, to answer your question, many legal steps can be taken to stop, slow, of even eliminate scientific communication.
• nradov 10y ago
  Yes it is legal for the head of the executive branch to set rules on how his underlings are allowed to communicate (except as otherwise prescribed by federal law).
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  • matt4077 10y ago
    None of these acts will amount to treason. That's because treason is rather strictly defined: not just in terms of the actions required (start a war against the US or aid&give comfort to the enemy). It also requires the specific motivation of "adhering to the enemy". Even the actions of Edward Snowden fall far short of this requirement. You could publish the IP address and password[0] for that Windows 95 box running the nuclear launch infrastructure without committing treason, as long as you can make a reasonable case that you did it for any other reason than to help a current "enemy" of the US. "Enemy" was probably meant as the opposing party in an actual war originally, but Russia/China/IS should probably do. [0]: fe80::1%lo0 / пароль