7 ms·
If it's illegal to know a thing ("it's classified") then you're kind of stuck, right? Governments hold a monopoly on Force, not a monopoly on Truth.
by mLuby 6y ago
If it's illegal to know a thing ("it's classified") then you're kind of stuck, right?
Governments hold a monopoly on Force, not a monopoly on Truth.
- ketamine__ 6y agoIs it important for the public to know the exact coordinates of troop movement in Syria? No, but the journalist can say there are troops operating in eastern Syria. A journalist without many scruples like Assange would publish the coordinates.
- h_anna_h 6y agoYou seem to be implying that it would be immoral for Assange to publish such a thing but don't justify it.
- ketamine__ 6y agoIt is immoral but do you think that is something Assange cares about?
- h_anna_h 6y agoIt is debatable that "It is immoral". Me and clearly Assange disagree with you about it.
- ketamine__ 6y agoGiving terrorists the tools to kill US troops is morally ambiguous?
- h_anna_h 6y agoNice way of phrasing it. Guess inventing cars gave the tools to the terrorists to kill people by driving into them.
- DennisP 6y agoIf you don't have a security clearance, it's not illegal to know the thing or even share the thing, if you happen to find out about it. It's different for people who do have a security clearance, because they signed away their First Amendment rights for classified information.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MichaelZuo 6y agoHas that ever been tested in court? That someone can sign away their first amendment rights?
- allan_s 6y agoIsn't that the same than a doctor signing away his right to divulgate his parent information (or a lawyer), or even more mundane, for a tech guy to publish the source code of his company ? (it's an actual question)
- mLuby 6y agoControversially, courts have upheld that citizens can sign away their right to a trial by jury; it's called binding arbitration. Also normal (non-government) NDAs let you sign away your right not to be punished for speaking about certain matters. I don't like it, but it's pretty well established. Point is that—legally speaking—rights aren't actually inalienable.
- MichaelZuo 6y agoIf constitutional rights can be signed away with the stroke of a pen since they are alienable... then a lot of absurdities become possible, such as someone selling themselves into slavery and so on. Do you know the prominent cases of the examples you mentioned?
- ibejoeb 6y ago> citizens can sign away their right to a trial by jury; it's called binding arbitration You can contract with another private entity to resolve disputes via arbitration, yes, but not with the state. The closest thing might be a plea agreement, but that happens after an indictment. You still have the right to a trial, but you may forego it if you choose. I suppose if you're saying that a security clearance is like an NDA with the state, it's a reasonable comparison in function, but the means of prosecution is entirely different. It's like saying that everyone could be subject to UCMJ because of conscription.