4 ms·

"The Government gets to decide what Journalists can & cannot publish". Anyone who publishes against the express wishes of the Govt. is a perpetrator possibly ev

"The Government gets to decide what Journalists can & cannot publish". Anyone who publishes against the express wishes of the Govt. is a perpetrator possibly even a criminal. This is pretty much the central theme of this mans argument. Shockingly there is a small thing called the First Amendment (Freedom of press clause) which would seem to disagree with this opinion strongly. Why he still continues to be taken seriously - given his very serious misunderstandings of basic US laws is beyond me.

harshreality 12y ago
That clause doesn't say what a "free" press means. No prior restraints, presumably, but does it mean the media can't be punished for anything and everything short of outright libel or inciting readers to commit crimes? I'm starting to dig through the FP (Federalist Papers) and AFP to try to figure out if the founders had any opinions on the subject of the press publishing classified information, but the entire idea of classification as it exists today may have been foreign and unforeseeable to them.
- adinb 12y ago
  Classified or secret information certainly existed in those times—though it was probably much more limited to direct military concerns. Examples of classified info: Strategic information would be troop movements (not into battle), supply build ups, orders for materials. Tactical information would be 'order of battle' related —troops and arms being brought directly to conflict, troop movements, etc. I would be very surprised if free press didn't include the ability to write things that the government didn't approve, short of actual, no kidding treason.
  - harshreality 12y ago
    But treason is very likely what would be claimed. Suppose the U.S. army were running a secret, covert war against Native Americans. Someone gets wind of operational details and publishes them in a newspaper. What then? Do we side with the government because operational details are legitimately protected by a doctrine of military secrets or classified information, or do we side with the newspaper because the war against Native Americans was a human rights travesty? Or suppose the colonies had spies or a method of procuring information about Redcoat army operations, and some redcoat sympathizer published that. In those times, the publisher might have had his house torched and been driven out of town. Of course information about the NSA's surveillance is at least one step removed from actual operational information that would be classified historically. You didn't classify knowledge of tradecraft, although such knowledge always has and will mark one as an unusual sort of person; what was classified was the information obtained through tradecraft. The Intelligence Community's argument is that it's so difficult to get the information we need through actual targeted tradecraft that we have to rely on mass surveillance, and that works best if the details of how that mass surveillance works are kept classified. Isolation from public oversight leads to intelligence capabilities that keep escalating until privacy of the country's own citizens or allies is in jeopardy. And the rather simplistic notions from the founding era of secrecy, for military operations or diplomatic negotiations, pitted against freedom of the press, don't shine a lot of light on this ideological divide.
late2part 12y ago
This Constitution you speak of also speaks of the right to bear arms, and due process, both of which are trampled. Your assertion that his allegations of the government influencing, and therefore limiting free speech, are based in fact and empirical support.

harshreality 12y ago

That clause doesn't say what a "free" press means. No prior restraints, presumably, but does it mean the media can't be punished for anything and everything short of outright libel or inciting readers to commit crimes? I'm starting to dig through the FP (Federalist Papers) and AFP to try to figure out if the founders had any opinions on the subject of the press publishing classified information, but the entire idea of classification as it exists today may have been foreign and unforeseeable to them.

adinb 12y ago
Classified or secret information certainly existed in those times—though it was probably much more limited to direct military concerns. Examples of classified info: Strategic information would be troop movements (not into battle), supply build ups, orders for materials. Tactical information would be 'order of battle' related —troops and arms being brought directly to conflict, troop movements, etc. I would be very surprised if free press didn't include the ability to write things that the government didn't approve, short of actual, no kidding treason.
- harshreality 12y ago
  But treason is very likely what would be claimed. Suppose the U.S. army were running a secret, covert war against Native Americans. Someone gets wind of operational details and publishes them in a newspaper. What then? Do we side with the government because operational details are legitimately protected by a doctrine of military secrets or classified information, or do we side with the newspaper because the war against Native Americans was a human rights travesty? Or suppose the colonies had spies or a method of procuring information about Redcoat army operations, and some redcoat sympathizer published that. In those times, the publisher might have had his house torched and been driven out of town. Of course information about the NSA's surveillance is at least one step removed from actual operational information that would be classified historically. You didn't classify knowledge of tradecraft, although such knowledge always has and will mark one as an unusual sort of person; what was classified was the information obtained through tradecraft. The Intelligence Community's argument is that it's so difficult to get the information we need through actual targeted tradecraft that we have to rely on mass surveillance, and that works best if the details of how that mass surveillance works are kept classified. Isolation from public oversight leads to intelligence capabilities that keep escalating until privacy of the country's own citizens or allies is in jeopardy. And the rather simplistic notions from the founding era of secrecy, for military operations or diplomatic negotiations, pitted against freedom of the press, don't shine a lot of light on this ideological divide.

late2part 12y ago

This Constitution you speak of also speaks of the right to bear arms, and due process, both of which are trampled. Your assertion that his allegations of the government influencing, and therefore limiting free speech, are based in fact and empirical support.