6 ms·

This was one of a clutch of related cases before the Supreme Court that gave us the pro-censorship cliché about "shouting fire in a theater."[1] The Espionage

This was one of a clutch of related cases before the Supreme Court that gave us the pro-censorship cliché about "shouting fire in a theater."[1] The Espionage Act that they were convicted under is, of course, still on the books, and now primarily used against whistleblowers and leakers. [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

zeth___ 8y ago
And of course Obama used it more than all other presidents combined. Which is why a libertarian had a really odd choice to make last election: go with someone who has hollowed out the constitution in her time in office as much as possible, or go with someone who promises to hollow out different parts of it. Or not vote.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > And of course Obama used it more than all other presidents combined. Could you provide a source for that?
  - tuxxy 8y ago
    A quick Google search would do you well. Take this article for example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe... Or even this one: https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/ https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-his...
  - cam_l 8y ago
    Not the op but.. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...
- tpush 8y ago
  Wouldn't a libertarian have voted for Gary Johnson?
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    That's essentially the same as not voting. Pragmatically, your three choices are Democrat, Republican, or "whatever the rest of the country decides". (That's if you live in a swing state; in a solidly red or blue state, "whatever the rest of the country decides" is really your only option.)
    - mcculley 8y ago
      It is not the same as not voting. Even if one disagrees with what the rest of the country decides, one should vote. If more people voted their conscience, the parties would be forced to reform.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        You're speaking hypothetically, but I'm speaking pragmatically. In the 2020 Presidential election, a Democrat or Republican will be elected, and a third-party vote will have the same effect on that as not voting: none, (arguably, unless it comes at the expense of a Democrat or Republican vote).
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Obama broke the record for most whistleblowers tried under the Espionage Act, and Trump is on pace to beat that record. So if that issue matters to you, voting Republican or Democrat has the same effect as not voting. Same thing if you are opposed to the wars. Real pragmatic choice.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        mcculley 8y ago
ataggart 8y ago
>"shouting fire in a theater." Relevant Christopher Hitchens: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY
- pas 8y ago
  I'm always amazed by his impeccable cocktail of eloquence and straight-to-the-pointness, but now I miss a bit of detour, the on the rocks for this particular drink: how would society heal out of a pathological state of ignorance/misinformation/xenophobia/bigotry? Sure, probably control of free speech is not the answer, but now I'm intrigued.
lern_too_spel 8y ago
> now primarily used against whistleblowers and leakers. It's primarily used against leakers. Throwing "whistleblowers" in there makes the statement misleading, since none of the leakers the Obama administration prosecuted under that act were whistleblowers. The controversy was that some of the leakers prosecuted were journalists, not whistleblowers.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  If one believes the government should be transparent, then they would be considered whistleblowers.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  One man's leaker is another man's whistleblower. It's not always so black and white.
- teachrdan 8y ago
  Here's a whistleblower who was prosecuted by the Obama administration: Thomas Drake, who revealed massive overspending and incompetence within the NSA. He was charged under the Espionage Act and the prosecution wanted to give him 35 years in prison; he ultimately plead guilty to "exceeding authorized access to a computer." https://www.wired.com/2011/06/drake-pleads-guilty/ https://www.wired.com/2011/06/drake-pleads-guilty/
byproxy 8y ago
Though, since 1969 the test for free speech has been imminent lawless action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

zeth___ 8y ago

And of course Obama used it more than all other presidents combined. Which is why a libertarian had a really odd choice to make last election: go with someone who has hollowed out the constitution in her time in office as much as possible, or go with someone who promises to hollow out different parts of it. Or not vote.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> And of course Obama used it more than all other presidents combined. Could you provide a source for that?
- tuxxy 8y ago
  A quick Google search would do you well. Take this article for example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe... Or even this one: https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/ https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-his...
- cam_l 8y ago
  Not the op but.. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...
tpush 8y ago
Wouldn't a libertarian have voted for Gary Johnson?
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  That's essentially the same as not voting. Pragmatically, your three choices are Democrat, Republican, or "whatever the rest of the country decides". (That's if you live in a swing state; in a solidly red or blue state, "whatever the rest of the country decides" is really your only option.)
  - mcculley 8y ago
    It is not the same as not voting. Even if one disagrees with what the rest of the country decides, one should vote. If more people voted their conscience, the parties would be forced to reform.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      You're speaking hypothetically, but I'm speaking pragmatically. In the 2020 Presidential election, a Democrat or Republican will be elected, and a third-party vote will have the same effect on that as not voting: none, (arguably, unless it comes at the expense of a Democrat or Republican vote).
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Obama broke the record for most whistleblowers tried under the Espionage Act, and Trump is on pace to beat that record. So if that issue matters to you, voting Republican or Democrat has the same effect as not voting. Same thing if you are opposed to the wars. Real pragmatic choice.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - mcculley 8y ago

ataggart 8y ago

>"shouting fire in a theater." Relevant Christopher Hitchens: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY

pas 8y ago
I'm always amazed by his impeccable cocktail of eloquence and straight-to-the-pointness, but now I miss a bit of detour, the on the rocks for this particular drink: how would society heal out of a pathological state of ignorance/misinformation/xenophobia/bigotry? Sure, probably control of free speech is not the answer, but now I'm intrigued.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

> now primarily used against whistleblowers and leakers. It's primarily used against leakers. Throwing "whistleblowers" in there makes the statement misleading, since none of the leakers the Obama administration prosecuted under that act were whistleblowers. The controversy was that some of the leakers prosecuted were journalists, not whistleblowers.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
If one believes the government should be transparent, then they would be considered whistleblowers.
Brockenstein 8y ago
One man's leaker is another man's whistleblower. It's not always so black and white.
teachrdan 8y ago
Here's a whistleblower who was prosecuted by the Obama administration: Thomas Drake, who revealed massive overspending and incompetence within the NSA. He was charged under the Espionage Act and the prosecution wanted to give him 35 years in prison; he ultimately plead guilty to "exceeding authorized access to a computer." https://www.wired.com/2011/06/drake-pleads-guilty/ https://www.wired.com/2011/06/drake-pleads-guilty/

byproxy 8y ago

Though, since 1969 the test for free speech has been imminent lawless action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action