4 ms·

> The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists. The only people I am aware of which published this w

by rrix2 7y ago

> The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists. The only people I am aware of which published this were journalists, since day 0. E: I see this is particularly in the context of his publishing his memoirs now after reading the filing. My apologies

logfromblammo 7y ago
Publishing timely facts makes you a journalist. Publishing older facts makes you a historian. There are no legal qualifications for asserting freedom of the press; everyone can do it. Anyone that has not entered into a contractual agreement with the US to protect classified materials can publish classified materials. It's just that the professional journalists, already established with the large news organizations, are the only ones with the visibility and reputation to not get jailed, vanished, or discredited afterwards. If you think the US won't break its own laws to protect its dirty secrets, you haven't seen enough leaks of its dirty secrets.
- rrix2 7y ago
  I understand all of that, and what a journalist is, thanks. I simply didn’t realize they were suing over the book and not, say, they yers of reporting from the Guardian, Le Monde, Intercept, etc based on documents passed to those publications’ journalists by Snowden.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Some people believe that being a journalist, and thereby enjoying the lawful protections guaranteed to journalists, requires press credentials. It is important to attack this belief whenever it is suggested, as it endangers all those journalists who are not fortunate enough to have a regular salary and a large media group backing them up. If you take your camera out, and point it at something happening in the street adjoining your home, and plan to post the story to YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, your own web page, send to your local television station, insert into a blog or print book, or have any other form of intent to publish, then for the purposes of exercising your rights, you are in that moment a journalist. There are no special rights that Clark Kent enjoys as a staff reporter that Peter Parker cannot invoke as an independent freelance photographer. --- I believe that specifically, the NDAs in question have a clause requiring personnel who intend to publish books to allow the agency to perform a pre-print review, to ensure no accidental spillage of classified materials through publication. Due to the nature of the contracts, the sole arbiter of whether information is classified is the classifying authority, so even if something has been published internationally in a globally-recognized newspaper, and is now common knowledge to hundreds of thousands of people, the information is still classified until the authority declassifies it. Those subject to the NDAs are technically not even allowed to read that article in the newspaper, or that chapter of the book, unless they then immediately take steps to control the classified in it and report it to their security contact. Which is to say that you are supposed to wrap the newspaper or book up in an opaque cover and drop it off at your security office. The actual security apparatus has evolved, but the legal framework is still very much from the 1950-1980 Cold War era, so if you do not do the patently ridiculous thing, you can be sued or prosecuted. Snowden didn't give CIA, NSA, DIA, or whomever else he may have had NDAs with, the opportunity to edit his book before going to print, for obvious reasons, so he's in violation of the contracts. It is unlikely there is anything in there that has not already been published in newspapers. It seems like they're refusing to declassify information that can no longer seriously be considered secret, with the potential to cause harm to national interests, solely because as long as it remains classified, they can use the contracts to silence, suppress, or retaliate against the whistleblower.
- tssva 7y ago
  Existing laws allow charging journalists for publishing classified information. There exists no freedom of the press protection regarding such publication. People seem to think that the Pentagon Papers case somehow created such a protection when it did not. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that the government couldn't prevent publishing of such information. It didn't rule that those that did couldn't be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. In fact several of the majority said in their briefs that the government could do exactly that.

by rrix2 7y ago

logfromblammo 7y ago

Publishing timely facts makes you a journalist. Publishing older facts makes you a historian. There are no legal qualifications for asserting freedom of the press; everyone can do it. Anyone that has not entered into a contractual agreement with the US to protect classified materials can publish classified materials. It's just that the professional journalists, already established with the large news organizations, are the only ones with the visibility and reputation to not get jailed, vanished, or discredited afterwards. If you think the US won't break its own laws to protect its dirty secrets, you haven't seen enough leaks of its dirty secrets.

rrix2 7y ago
I understand all of that, and what a journalist is, thanks. I simply didn’t realize they were suing over the book and not, say, they yers of reporting from the Guardian, Le Monde, Intercept, etc based on documents passed to those publications’ journalists by Snowden.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Some people believe that being a journalist, and thereby enjoying the lawful protections guaranteed to journalists, requires press credentials. It is important to attack this belief whenever it is suggested, as it endangers all those journalists who are not fortunate enough to have a regular salary and a large media group backing them up. If you take your camera out, and point it at something happening in the street adjoining your home, and plan to post the story to YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, your own web page, send to your local television station, insert into a blog or print book, or have any other form of intent to publish, then for the purposes of exercising your rights, you are in that moment a journalist. There are no special rights that Clark Kent enjoys as a staff reporter that Peter Parker cannot invoke as an independent freelance photographer. --- I believe that specifically, the NDAs in question have a clause requiring personnel who intend to publish books to allow the agency to perform a pre-print review, to ensure no accidental spillage of classified materials through publication. Due to the nature of the contracts, the sole arbiter of whether information is classified is the classifying authority, so even if something has been published internationally in a globally-recognized newspaper, and is now common knowledge to hundreds of thousands of people, the information is still classified until the authority declassifies it. Those subject to the NDAs are technically not even allowed to read that article in the newspaper, or that chapter of the book, unless they then immediately take steps to control the classified in it and report it to their security contact. Which is to say that you are supposed to wrap the newspaper or book up in an opaque cover and drop it off at your security office. The actual security apparatus has evolved, but the legal framework is still very much from the 1950-1980 Cold War era, so if you do not do the patently ridiculous thing, you can be sued or prosecuted. Snowden didn't give CIA, NSA, DIA, or whomever else he may have had NDAs with, the opportunity to edit his book before going to print, for obvious reasons, so he's in violation of the contracts. It is unlikely there is anything in there that has not already been published in newspapers. It seems like they're refusing to declassify information that can no longer seriously be considered secret, with the potential to cause harm to national interests, solely because as long as it remains classified, they can use the contracts to silence, suppress, or retaliate against the whistleblower.
tssva 7y ago
Existing laws allow charging journalists for publishing classified information. There exists no freedom of the press protection regarding such publication. People seem to think that the Pentagon Papers case somehow created such a protection when it did not. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that the government couldn't prevent publishing of such information. It didn't rule that those that did couldn't be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. In fact several of the majority said in their briefs that the government could do exactly that.