3 ms·
Presumably, there's a memo box that says wikileaks, since I doubt these guys knew him by name. I was ok with wikileaks when I first heard of them. After seein
by jbooth 16y ago
Presumably, there's a memo box that says wikileaks, since I doubt these guys knew him by name.
I was ok with wikileaks when I first heard of them. After seeing the type and character of their opposition? I'm now a rabid supporter. What they do is legal, this has been upheld in the supreme court, and these people are being fundamentally unamerican in the 1st amendment sense by trying to extrajudicially harrass people.
EDIT: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...
- tedunangst 16y agoThat court case may not be a slam dunk defense. For a different perspective, I found this article interesting. http://www.slate.com/id/2276592/ http://www.slate.com/id/2276592/
- jbooth 16y agoEh, I think that's just a linkbait headline. It's materially different to wiretap private individuals for the purpose of defamation than it is to publish federal documents. There's no such thing as "defaming the govt" under law, for example.
- tedunangst 16y agoThe more important facts, imo, were the six different opinions written and that while the court refused to grant a pre-publication injunction, they didn't actually grant immunity from post-publication prosecution. The summary of the Pentagon Papers case is not "publishing secrets is ok".
- jbooth 16y agoGood call. This is where I put on my IANAL hat :) I guess I made an assumption based on the fact that Ellsburg never got prosecuted for anything.