3 ms·
I think you are probably right, or at least I am willing to admit that you sound like you know better than I do. I had the impression that there was a distincti
by trotsky 16y ago
I think you are probably right, or at least I am willing to admit that you sound like you know better than I do. I had the impression that there was a distinction being drawn between distributing the documents themselves, and disseminating the information contained within - and that was why you never saw the full documents in the papers and only abstracts. I can't find any evidence of that being true, though, now that I've looked.
- thecoffman 16y agoYa, I'm certainly no expert either - this is just based upon what I've read. I think it falls under the same class of protection as the Pentagon Papers did. What Ellsberg did was illegal - but the New York Times wasn't prosecuted for publishing the information. However the New York Times did only publish excerpts like you're saying and not the full documents so maybe there is something to what you're saying? The full documents were not made public until Mike Gravel published them in the proceedings of the Senate using an interesting legal loophole.