4 ms·

The Executive Branch is going after both the press and the Congress, and the article doesn't convey anyone putting up too much of a fight. Unless I missed somet

The Executive Branch is going after both the press and the Congress, and the article doesn't convey anyone putting up too much of a fight. Unless I missed something, I only see statements of concern or principle, from 'we'll see if this is bad' to "we're deeply troubled" > “Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy, and communications between journalists and their sources demand protection,” said Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman. > Ms. Watkins’s personal lawyer, Mark J. MacDougall, said: “It’s always disconcerting when a journalist’s telephone records are obtained by the Justice Department — through a grand jury subpoena or other legal process. Whether it was really necessary here will depend on the nature of the investigation and the scope of any charges.” > Ben Smith, the editor in chief of BuzzFeed News, said in a statement, “We’re deeply troubled by what looks like a case of law enforcement interfering with a reporter’s constitutional right to gather information about her own government.”

drawnwren 8y ago
This really isn't that surprising. If, by reporting you are directly involved in a crime - you're gonna have a bad time. We can argue all day about whether information should be classified, but the fact remains that disclosing classified information is illegal in the US. Had the reporter engaged in murder or theft while reporting, would there be any outrage? I admit it's a bit odd, because it isn't a crime for the reporter -- but they are definitely involved in the commission of a crime.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > the fact remains that disclosing classified information is illegal in the US It's not as simple as that; a few points: 1. The Constitution's protection of freedom of the press can outweigh any laws on classification, though the courts haven't said that. 2. The unauthorized release of classified information has many times been important for democracy to function, for government to be held accountable, and that is exactly the role and function of the press. 3. The classification of information is believed by many to be excessive. Much that is classified is not dangerous and doesn't need to be classified. I've read several examples of information classified to cover up government activities. 4. Classification obviously could be used to intentionally reduce accountability to the public. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the President commits a crime, and it's covered up by classification. Arguably, this happened with NSA spying and CIA torture. 5. Until the Obama administration, Presidents did not prosecute leaks regularly, indicating that they were not viewed as dangerous. Generally, not nearly all laws are enforced; 'it's illegal' is not a threshold, or it seems almost everyone could be prosecuted for something. > Had the reporter engaged in murder or theft while reporting, would there be any outrage? Not comparable.

drawnwren 8y ago

This really isn't that surprising. If, by reporting you are directly involved in a crime - you're gonna have a bad time. We can argue all day about whether information should be classified, but the fact remains that disclosing classified information is illegal in the US. Had the reporter engaged in murder or theft while reporting, would there be any outrage? I admit it's a bit odd, because it isn't a crime for the reporter -- but they are definitely involved in the commission of a crime.

forapurpose 8y ago
> the fact remains that disclosing classified information is illegal in the US It's not as simple as that; a few points: 1. The Constitution's protection of freedom of the press can outweigh any laws on classification, though the courts haven't said that. 2. The unauthorized release of classified information has many times been important for democracy to function, for government to be held accountable, and that is exactly the role and function of the press. 3. The classification of information is believed by many to be excessive. Much that is classified is not dangerous and doesn't need to be classified. I've read several examples of information classified to cover up government activities. 4. Classification obviously could be used to intentionally reduce accountability to the public. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the President commits a crime, and it's covered up by classification. Arguably, this happened with NSA spying and CIA torture. 5. Until the Obama administration, Presidents did not prosecute leaks regularly, indicating that they were not viewed as dangerous. Generally, not nearly all laws are enforced; 'it's illegal' is not a threshold, or it seems almost everyone could be prosecuted for something. > Had the reporter engaged in murder or theft while reporting, would there be any outrage? Not comparable.