3 ms·

It's not just based on contracts, there's US code that prohibits sharing classified information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law

It's not just based on contracts, there's US code that prohibits sharing classified information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 NYT gets away with it because they'd probably get off on a freedom of press defense, but the DoJ doesn't want to turn grey legal theory into case law. It's more useful to leave the possibility open that it won't go that way as a cudgel. But in the general case, national security restrictions to freedom of speech have passed judicial muster.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> It's more useful to leave the possibility open that it won't go that way as a cudgel. In other words, it's plausibly unconstitutional. It's also kind of hilarious that the specific thing you're not allowed to disclose is how cryptosystems work, which is the thing all cryptographers agree doesn't have to be a secret in order to be secure or else your cryptosystem is completely broken and shouldn't be used.
- monocasa 5y ago
  It's plausibly unconstitutional to go after established newspapers and other clearly press institutions. And I was wrong, it's hit the supreme court in NYT vs US. The majority opinion is a purely press freedom argument, with a joint press freedom/speech freedom argument being a minority concurring opinion. There's plenty of case law that the government can stifle speech for national security purposes, and it's not limited to signed contracts for enforcement.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > And I was wrong, it's hit the supreme court in NYT vs US. The majority opinion is a purely press freedom argument, with a joint press freedom/speech freedom argument being a minority concurring opinion. That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? It's kind of a bizarre distinction in modern society regardless. Speech and press were historically different. Speaking you did in front of a crowd, the press was in print. Today both happen over the internet. Are we supposed to treat it differently based on whether your website contains text or audio/video? Why? > There's plenty of case law that the government can stifle speech for national security purposes In which case did the Supreme Court say that?
    - monocasa 5y ago
      > That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? Because the concurring, but minority opinion is a joint press freedom and speech freedom argument, but the majority of the court didn't agree with the argument, hence it being a minority concurring opinion. > In which case did the Supreme Court say that? For one example of many, Near v Minnesota. "No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> It's more useful to leave the possibility open that it won't go that way as a cudgel. In other words, it's plausibly unconstitutional. It's also kind of hilarious that the specific thing you're not allowed to disclose is how cryptosystems work, which is the thing all cryptographers agree doesn't have to be a secret in order to be secure or else your cryptosystem is completely broken and shouldn't be used.

monocasa 5y ago
It's plausibly unconstitutional to go after established newspapers and other clearly press institutions. And I was wrong, it's hit the supreme court in NYT vs US. The majority opinion is a purely press freedom argument, with a joint press freedom/speech freedom argument being a minority concurring opinion. There's plenty of case law that the government can stifle speech for national security purposes, and it's not limited to signed contracts for enforcement.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > And I was wrong, it's hit the supreme court in NYT vs US. The majority opinion is a purely press freedom argument, with a joint press freedom/speech freedom argument being a minority concurring opinion. That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? It's kind of a bizarre distinction in modern society regardless. Speech and press were historically different. Speaking you did in front of a crowd, the press was in print. Today both happen over the internet. Are we supposed to treat it differently based on whether your website contains text or audio/video? Why? > There's plenty of case law that the government can stifle speech for national security purposes In which case did the Supreme Court say that?
  - monocasa 5y ago
    > That case is talking about freedom of the press for the obvious reason that the parties there are the New York Times and Washington Post; print publications. Where are you getting the idea that the same wouldn't apply to freedom of speech? Because the concurring, but minority opinion is a joint press freedom and speech freedom argument, but the majority of the court didn't agree with the argument, hence it being a minority concurring opinion. > In which case did the Supreme Court say that? For one example of many, Near v Minnesota. "No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."