4 ms·

One lawyer I follow on Bluesky mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications. Also, this involves national security which cour

by malshe 2y ago

One lawyer I follow on Bluesky mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications. Also, this involves national security which courts may treat differently than other issues. I am more surprised that he did not save this incident for a future book

cocacola1 2y ago
Might boost their subs. This legit got me to resubscribe to the Atlantic.
- malshe 2y ago
  I think that's a fair assessment. Goldberg seems to have strong journalistic ethics too. Again, from Bluesky, David Graham asks Jeffrey Goldberg about possible retaliation Jeffrey: It's not my role to care about the possibility of threats or retaliation. We just have to come to work and do our jobs to the best of our ability. Unfortunately, in our society today—-we see this across corporate journalism and law firms and other industries--there's too much preemptive obeying for my taste. All we can do is just go do our jobs.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > there's too much preemptive obeying for my taste. From historian Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny, chapter/lesson number one: > Do not obey in advance. * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/558051/on-tyranny-by-timothy-snyder/9780804190114/excerpt https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/558051/on-tyranny-by... * https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny/ https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny/
refurb 2y ago
What legal ramifications? Are you saying it's a crime for someone else to accidentally add you to their chat?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  Yeah, there is a crime defined for intentionally gathering national defense information, and that crime is called "espionage"; while the courts have found constitutional limits beyond what is in the text of the law that restrict when it can be applied, the application of those limits isn't super consistent in practice and the formal boundary could be changed by the courts at any time when the government is pushing it, and a journalist knowingly taking advantage of someone else's mistake to continue gathering such information would not be out of line of the situations in which the government has pursued charges for that in the last decade.
  - refurb 2y ago
    and a journalist knowingly taking advantage of someone else's mistake to continue gathering such information would not be out of line of the situations in which the government has pursued charges for that in the last decade. Yes, that would be a crime, but that's not what the original comment said. > mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications I'm asking "if someone was added in error, why do legal ramification increase"? Clearly being added in error then publishing a bunch of stories in a series would be a crime.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > I'm asking "if someone was added in error, why do legal ramification increase"? No, that's exactly what I answered: the ramifications increase the longer he stays on, because the longer he stays on the greater chance it is seen as exploiting the error with intent to gain national defense information.
      - refurb 2y ago
        So if someone accidentally adds me to a Signal chat, which I stopped using so no longer check, and it goes on for years, I’m guilty of a crime?
        2y ago

by malshe 2y ago

cocacola1 2y ago

Might boost their subs. This legit got me to resubscribe to the Atlantic.

malshe 2y ago
I think that's a fair assessment. Goldberg seems to have strong journalistic ethics too. Again, from Bluesky, David Graham asks Jeffrey Goldberg about possible retaliation Jeffrey: It's not my role to care about the possibility of threats or retaliation. We just have to come to work and do our jobs to the best of our ability. Unfortunately, in our society today—-we see this across corporate journalism and law firms and other industries--there's too much preemptive obeying for my taste. All we can do is just go do our jobs.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > there's too much preemptive obeying for my taste. From historian Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny, chapter/lesson number one: > Do not obey in advance. * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/558051/on-tyranny-by-timothy-snyder/9780804190114/excerpt https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/558051/on-tyranny-by... * https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny/ https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny/

refurb 2y ago

What legal ramifications? Are you saying it's a crime for someone else to accidentally add you to their chat?

dragonwriter 2y ago
Yeah, there is a crime defined for intentionally gathering national defense information, and that crime is called "espionage"; while the courts have found constitutional limits beyond what is in the text of the law that restrict when it can be applied, the application of those limits isn't super consistent in practice and the formal boundary could be changed by the courts at any time when the government is pushing it, and a journalist knowingly taking advantage of someone else's mistake to continue gathering such information would not be out of line of the situations in which the government has pursued charges for that in the last decade.
- refurb 2y ago
  and a journalist knowingly taking advantage of someone else's mistake to continue gathering such information would not be out of line of the situations in which the government has pursued charges for that in the last decade. Yes, that would be a crime, but that's not what the original comment said. > mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications I'm asking "if someone was added in error, why do legal ramification increase"? Clearly being added in error then publishing a bunch of stories in a series would be a crime.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > I'm asking "if someone was added in error, why do legal ramification increase"? No, that's exactly what I answered: the ramifications increase the longer he stays on, because the longer he stays on the greater chance it is seen as exploiting the error with intent to gain national defense information.
    - refurb 2y ago
      So if someone accidentally adds me to a Signal chat, which I stopped using so no longer check, and it goes on for years, I’m guilty of a crime?
      - 2y ago