12 ms·
Bad wording on my part. I guess I was saying that there hasn't been a major court decision overturning US vs Ellsbury/NYT, yet somehow everyone's just pretendi
by jbooth 13y ago
Bad wording on my part. I guess I was saying that there hasn't been a major court decision overturning US vs Ellsbury/NYT, yet somehow everyone's just pretending it's gone. Seems to me like in order to contradict that previous ruling you should be going to the Supreme Court.
I also think it's sketchy as hell to name someone as a 'co-conspirator' in a leak case for being a journalist who was leaked to. That's not conspiracy, it's doing their job with protection from the first amendment.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tss20147 13y agoThey aren't pretending it's gone. There is a difference between a journalist passively receiving classified material which a source decides to provide them and a journalist actively soliciting a source to provide classified material. The government has a reasonable argument that a journalist actively soliciting for classified material may be in violation of the law and not protected under the first amendment. This has not been settled by case law and the judge which signed off on the search warrant agreed with the government that the journalist may be a co-conspirator.
- jbooth 13y agoThanks, I hadn't thought about it that way. Still disagree with it and all that but at least it makes some amount of sense that they were able to pull it off now.