6 ms·

> Parson said...the reporter was “attempting to embarrass the state and sell headlines for their news outlet.” Literally a reporter's job.

by jmull 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago
“I’m going to weaponize the law because you embarrassed us.”
- moate 5y ago
  I can't imagine that a large, national organization like the ACLU or CPJ would want to dump tons of money into making this a massive national story should that happen... Someone about to experience the Streisand effect in FULL force.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Somehow, I have the feeling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's lawyers are thinking, "Bring it! We haven't had this much fun in ages."
    - merpnderp 5y ago
      I'm sure the judges likely to see this case are giggling over what they'll say to the state prosecutors.
      - InitialLastName 5y ago
        Having read opinions by federal circuit court judges on technical matters, it's not clear to me that the judges who will see this case are likely to understand the matter any better than the governor.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    In a state like Missouri getting sued by the ACLU is probably something that can be used to win an election and is seen as a badge of honor. They probably welcome it and all it costs them is tax payer dollars. They really just need to publicize any controversial party the ACLU represented and claim to be standing up to the sorts of people that would defend that behavior. If they lose in court it turns into a two for one as they get to rail against 'activist judges' and whip their base to go out and vote.
mhh__ 5y ago
This could actually become illegal in the UK. The official secrets act might be amended to make it illegal to embarrass the state...
- faeyanpiraat 5y ago
  -50 points from your profile
- iggldiggl 5y ago
  To quote Yes Minister: "The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect secrets, it is there to protect officials."
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    A good faith reading of that statement interprets it to mean: the act isn't intended to keep pertinent information away from the public, but to protect the identities of officials who were tangentially involved. Surely no official interprets it to mean: protecting the public image of officials by way of hiding pertinent information from the public, right?
  - switch007 5y ago
    It is amazing how much truth they stuffed in to that show
- xxpor 5y ago
  The fact that journalists in the UK can and have been prosecuted for publishing leaks is completely absurd. Europeans think the first amendment goes too far a lot of the time, but this is the other side of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
- jimnotgym 5y ago
  ...because being an embarrassment to the state is reserved for our government
- nemo44x 5y ago
0xBA5ED 5y ago
The funny thing is, the reporter successfully embarrassed the state, then the state embarrassed itself further in response.
- mmazing 5y ago
  Color me surprised. I really don't understand the whole "double down" approach to doing things.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    you wouldn't; neither would most of us on this site. ~50% of the population wouldn't. They are targeting the 50% + 1 of their state population that voted for this man. They are probably doing a pretty good job of it too.
- gizmodo59 5y ago
  We won’t know it for sure. Most of the state is not technical so it’s whatever the popular media spins it.
- e40 5y ago
  Streisand effect, too. None of us would have heard about this otherwise.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    I had already heard about it on a local security mailing list, but most of us on the list would have preferred to be spared the international embarrassment.
- mike_h 5y ago
  Parsons knew what he was doing, he won’t be embarrassed. It’s a Trumpian move to stir up resentment against the “liberal media” – not something meant to be evaluated critically.
snarf21 5y ago
And literally protected by the 1st amendment.
rchaud 5y ago
It was successful, because I, a non-Missourian now know about it, whereas in its initial state, this story would have been voluntarily witheld. Those scheming reporters! /s
fnordfnordfnord 5y ago
>Literally a reporter's job. And the governor's helping!

> Parson said...the reporter was “attempting to embarrass the state and sell headlines for their news outlet.” Literally a reporter's job.

by jmull 5y ago

> Parson said...the reporter was “attempting to embarrass the state and sell headlines for their news outlet.” Literally a reporter's job.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

“I’m going to weaponize the law because you embarrassed us.”

moate 5y ago
I can't imagine that a large, national organization like the ACLU or CPJ would want to dump tons of money into making this a massive national story should that happen... Someone about to experience the Streisand effect in FULL force.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Somehow, I have the feeling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's lawyers are thinking, "Bring it! We haven't had this much fun in ages."
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    I'm sure the judges likely to see this case are giggling over what they'll say to the state prosecutors.
    - InitialLastName 5y ago
      Having read opinions by federal circuit court judges on technical matters, it's not clear to me that the judges who will see this case are likely to understand the matter any better than the governor.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  In a state like Missouri getting sued by the ACLU is probably something that can be used to win an election and is seen as a badge of honor. They probably welcome it and all it costs them is tax payer dollars. They really just need to publicize any controversial party the ACLU represented and claim to be standing up to the sorts of people that would defend that behavior. If they lose in court it turns into a two for one as they get to rail against 'activist judges' and whip their base to go out and vote.

mhh__ 5y ago

This could actually become illegal in the UK. The official secrets act might be amended to make it illegal to embarrass the state...

faeyanpiraat 5y ago
-50 points from your profile
iggldiggl 5y ago
To quote Yes Minister: "The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect secrets, it is there to protect officials."
- teawrecks 5y ago
  A good faith reading of that statement interprets it to mean: the act isn't intended to keep pertinent information away from the public, but to protect the identities of officials who were tangentially involved. Surely no official interprets it to mean: protecting the public image of officials by way of hiding pertinent information from the public, right?
- switch007 5y ago
  It is amazing how much truth they stuffed in to that show
xxpor 5y ago
The fact that journalists in the UK can and have been prosecuted for publishing leaks is completely absurd. Europeans think the first amendment goes too far a lot of the time, but this is the other side of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
jimnotgym 5y ago
...because being an embarrassment to the state is reserved for our government
nemo44x 5y ago

0xBA5ED 5y ago

The funny thing is, the reporter successfully embarrassed the state, then the state embarrassed itself further in response.

mmazing 5y ago
Color me surprised. I really don't understand the whole "double down" approach to doing things.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  you wouldn't; neither would most of us on this site. ~50% of the population wouldn't. They are targeting the 50% + 1 of their state population that voted for this man. They are probably doing a pretty good job of it too.
gizmodo59 5y ago
We won’t know it for sure. Most of the state is not technical so it’s whatever the popular media spins it.
e40 5y ago
Streisand effect, too. None of us would have heard about this otherwise.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  I had already heard about it on a local security mailing list, but most of us on the list would have preferred to be spared the international embarrassment.
mike_h 5y ago
Parsons knew what he was doing, he won’t be embarrassed. It’s a Trumpian move to stir up resentment against the “liberal media” – not something meant to be evaluated critically.

snarf21 5y ago

And literally protected by the 1st amendment.

rchaud 5y ago

It was successful, because I, a non-Missourian now know about it, whereas in its initial state, this story would have been voluntarily witheld. Those scheming reporters! /s

fnordfnordfnord 5y ago

>Literally a reporter's job. And the governor's helping!