4 ms·

Playing Devil's Advocate, the Feds are going after Snowden not on the premise of censoring him. Instead, they are arguing that as part of his employment agreem

Playing Devil's Advocate, the Feds are going after Snowden not on the premise of censoring him. Instead, they are arguing that as part of his employment agreement, they have the right to vet anything IP related he publicly discloses. It's similar to many employer-employee relationships. I've had to pass my slide deck to my manager to screen before speaking at conferences and many companies have an officially sanctioned engineering blog as an outlet. Obviously Snowden is close to heart for many in HN, and I personally see him as a hero. However, when viewed as contract law instead of censorship, shouldn't the Feds be allowed this seizure?

jstanley 7y ago
Have you read the book? It's more like an autobiography than a spilling of secrets. There's nothing in the book about CIA or NSA operations that isn't already public knowledge.
- snapetom 7y ago
  Admittedly I haven't read it. Are the operations information in the book from his leaks?
SkyBelow 7y ago
Double Devil's Advocate: Is not the enforcement of an NDA action done by the government that limits the speech of a person? Is that it is being done on behalf of a private entity enough to clear up the First Amendment implications of this? If so, how far can this be abused?
buboard 7y ago
i don't think people are arguing the legality of the ruling but the pettiness of it and how it makes them look even worse
- snapetom 7y ago
  Clearly it's petty. The Feds have a history of taking one misguided step based on ignorance and never backing down no matter how stupid they look. We don't disagree on that. However, a lot of the comments here are based arguing First Amendment. Employees enter in all sorts of employee-employer agreements that limit First Amendment rights.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Yes, NDAs are a thing, but one could argue that the contract is a prior restraint on free speech, something the Supreme Court has ruled many times is unconstitutional.

jstanley 7y ago

Have you read the book? It's more like an autobiography than a spilling of secrets. There's nothing in the book about CIA or NSA operations that isn't already public knowledge.

snapetom 7y ago
Admittedly I haven't read it. Are the operations information in the book from his leaks?

SkyBelow 7y ago

Double Devil's Advocate: Is not the enforcement of an NDA action done by the government that limits the speech of a person? Is that it is being done on behalf of a private entity enough to clear up the First Amendment implications of this? If so, how far can this be abused?

buboard 7y ago

i don't think people are arguing the legality of the ruling but the pettiness of it and how it makes them look even worse

snapetom 7y ago
Clearly it's petty. The Feds have a history of taking one misguided step based on ignorance and never backing down no matter how stupid they look. We don't disagree on that. However, a lot of the comments here are based arguing First Amendment. Employees enter in all sorts of employee-employer agreements that limit First Amendment rights.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  Yes, NDAs are a thing, but one could argue that the contract is a prior restraint on free speech, something the Supreme Court has ruled many times is unconstitutional.