3 ms·
My understanding is that the Espionage Act literally continues not to allow other parties to possess or distribute classified documents, even if they weren't in
by schoen 4y ago
My understanding is that the Espionage Act literally continues not to allow other parties to possess or distribute classified documents, even if they weren't involved in the original leak. However, some observers have doubted that courts would agree that the strictest reading comports with the first amendment, if they actually had to decide the question.
I've also heard that, in recent decades, Federal prosecutors have not brought Espionage Act charges directly against those they agreed were acting as journalists, although they have been willing to try to force them to reveal the identity of their sources. (There are also court decisions limiting "prior restraint" of publication of classified material, e.g. via a court injunction, but that doesn't necessarily equate to prohibiting people from being punished for doing so after the fact.)
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago>My understanding is that the Espionage Act literally continues not to allow other parties to possess or distribute classified documents, even if they weren't involved in the original leak. However, some observers have doubted that courts would agree that the strictest reading comports with the first amendment, if they actually had to decide the question. My impression is that it's very much a "leak one document, you have a problem, leak a million documents, the feds have a problem" situation wherein they'll happily prosecute people when the situation is mundane enough it won't draw serious scrutiny but when something is a media spectacle they don't tend to go hard except against the initial leaker.