4 ms·
Well, I mean, because the supreme court said that they get special treatment. [0] The rationale is that it's too easy for politicians/officials to hide things
by tombert 6y ago
Well, I mean, because the supreme court said that they get special treatment. [0]
The rationale is that it's too easy for politicians/officials to hide things from the public by arbitrarily declaring things as "secret", and that the public has the right to know about this stuff.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
- throwawaysea 6y agoSo does that mean anyone can leak confidential information from any company or government agency without accountability and without recourse for those harmed?
- tombert 6y agoNo, that means that the journalist who publishes the information (who signed no such classified agreement) wouldn't have accountability for things that aren't directly related to national security. The individual actually doing the leaking could still be prosecuted.
- xvector 6y agoThe people are far more important than the government, agencies, or corporations. These entities care for nothing but power, vying for it every moment, corrupting everything they can corrupt to get more of it. It is essential to have a spotlight on them exposing when they go too far.