4 ms·

An NSL cannot force you to lie. You can say "no comment", and that's how it's always been handled. Why would they vehemently deny an NSL (with all the risks inv

An NSL cannot force you to lie. You can say "no comment", and that's how it's always been handled. Why would they vehemently deny an NSL (with all the risks involved) when "no comment" would suffice ?

lovich 8y ago
Is that still true though? The NSL already compel speech in that they limit what you can say. We already have secret courts making decisions that we find out about years later. At this point the major wall has been breached in terms of rights, altering speech for national security, and we can no longer trust anything. If the secret courts decided they were going to compel active speech instead of compelling negative speech, what mechanism would let us know of the change? I don't think there is any
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  That is not what compel speech means.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Most people in this thread have zero experience with national security issues, and the ACLU/EFF opinions are more what those organizations feel should be the constitutional interpretation, not what actual circumstance is. You certainly can be compelled to say certain things to keep classified information secret, at risk of federal prison or worse, and this is the same law that is being abused for NSLs.
  - mattzito 8y ago
    I’ve seen you make this claim several times in this thread, but haven’t provided any evidence. Can you provide a source that says that the federal government can compel false statements as part of national security demands?
    - scrps 8y ago
      I was curious about this as well and did a bit of searching around (I didn't dig that deeply and IANAL) and found this: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-disclosure-by-design https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-di... Specifically Section IV, subsection C "Canaries and the First Amendment Status of Compelled Lies"
  - breatheoften 8y ago
    That sounds like a pretty nightmarish tactic ... Is there a way where the government could either purposefully disclose classified information (or retroactively classify it) so as to force certain individuals into making particular statements or denials via the threat that if they said otherwise they would be guilty of disclosing classified information ...?

lovich 8y ago

Is that still true though? The NSL already compel speech in that they limit what you can say. We already have secret courts making decisions that we find out about years later. At this point the major wall has been breached in terms of rights, altering speech for national security, and we can no longer trust anything. If the secret courts decided they were going to compel active speech instead of compelling negative speech, what mechanism would let us know of the change? I don't think there is any

lawnchair_larry 8y ago
That is not what compel speech means.
garmaine 8y ago
Most people in this thread have zero experience with national security issues, and the ACLU/EFF opinions are more what those organizations feel should be the constitutional interpretation, not what actual circumstance is. You certainly can be compelled to say certain things to keep classified information secret, at risk of federal prison or worse, and this is the same law that is being abused for NSLs.
- mattzito 8y ago
  I’ve seen you make this claim several times in this thread, but haven’t provided any evidence. Can you provide a source that says that the federal government can compel false statements as part of national security demands?
  - scrps 8y ago
    I was curious about this as well and did a bit of searching around (I didn't dig that deeply and IANAL) and found this: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-disclosure-by-design https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-di... Specifically Section IV, subsection C "Canaries and the First Amendment Status of Compelled Lies"
- breatheoften 8y ago
  That sounds like a pretty nightmarish tactic ... Is there a way where the government could either purposefully disclose classified information (or retroactively classify it) so as to force certain individuals into making particular statements or denials via the threat that if they said otherwise they would be guilty of disclosing classified information ...?