>I never stipulated the law was defensible. The problem is that your statement "That is not intimidatory. It is exactly how I would expect a democratic institu

>I never stipulated the law was defensible. The problem is that your statement "That is not intimidatory. It is exactly how I would expect a democratic institution to act." could easily be interpreted as you saying exactly that. What happens is that two separate questions - whether the security individuals on the ground should have carried out the law as specified, and whether that law should exist in the first place - get conflated. How I personally would expect a democratic institution to act is to not have these kinds of laws. Press freedom is a critical part of a properly functioning democracy, and I get sick of the state crying wolf with "it's threatening national security" (without, as far as I'm aware, a single instance of an actual national security issue arising from one of these stories ever being published) every time a journalist breaks a story that's embarrassing to them.