Media and releasing govt documents

[steve_bank]

If I break into CIA headquarters and steal a book from someone's office that is a felony. If I give it to someone who knows it is stolen that Peron is quickly of receiving stolen goods. If that person had conversations with me before the theft and after the theft and did not report it, that person is guilty of aiding and abetting.

If I steal a classified paper document and hand it to the a reported, same scenario.

If I am a reporter who knows a personal contact in the govt is reveling classified information to me, I am guilty of conspiracy.

The 1st Amendment infers media can say what it wants without govt suppression. It does not say media has a right to complete transparency anywhere, anytime, or in any situation.

I watched CNN today trying to defend Assange. They are trying to cover their asses.

What I'd like to know of CNN and the NYT is who is snorting coke in a closet, who related to news reporting and opinion has a drug or gambling problem that would open them to blackmail. The financial records of financial reporters so we can see if their reporting is biased. And so on.

If we are to have total transparency, then it must include all media outlets.

Somebody should start an organization to look at media the exact way it looks at govt and the personal lives of citizens. I want to know if Wolf Blitzer had a DUI or if his kids have drug problems. We have a right to know, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But if you're given a copy of the classified data you didn't receive stolen property, only stolen information--and classified data isn't protected by copyright.

 

[steve_bank]

A digital copy I'd say is the same in this case. You Illegally download a PDF with classified material. No different than having a hard copy of the original document or the original PDF. Same principle..

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Maybe not. Case in point, The Pentagon Papers.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think how you receive them is more important than the form you receive them in.

 

[dismal]

“For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint”
- Walter Sobchak

 

[zorq]

Let's suppose a stranger walks past you on the street and whispers, "Don't tell anyone, but Dick Cheney is definitely getting kickbacks from Halliburton." Let's further suppose that this information was stolen... by someone, somewhere.

Now, are you allowed to print this sentence in a newspaper? Yes. Should you be allowed to print this in a newspaper? Yes. What's the big deal? Passing along information, especially TRUE information should not be a crime for anyone. It's not about "total transparency." It's about the right to communicate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The media can NOT be complicit in the theft. Edward Snowden contacted the media, not the other way around. The first thing that comes to mind is the Chiquita scandal back in '98 that kind of vanished after the method of acquiring the intel by the reporters became known.

Shortly after the publication of the story, the Cincinnati Enquirer had to issue both a retraction and apologize not for the acts being untrue—but for the way in which Gallagher and McWhirter gained their information. In addition to the apology and retraction, the Cincinnati Enquirer was forced to pay Chiquita a settlement of over $10 million for damages. Both Gallagher and Ventura were convicted of stealing Chiquita’s internal voicemails—with Gallagher being immediately fired from the paper. The ruling was a clear statement that investigations of corporate wrongdoing was subject to severe punishment and should be discouraged by the example set by the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Assange is being accused of coordinating the theft of intel by Manning.

 

[steve_bank]

The endian fallback is it just popped up in my email or I found it at my door step.

 

[Deepak]

The endian fallback is it just popped up in my email or I found it at my door step.

At the end of the day he could have been handed the docs personally by Manning and still been under the umbrella of the First Amendment. The claim here seems to be that he gave Manning tools to crack another account after the initial security clearance well had run dry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A digital copy I'd say is the same in this case. You Illegally download a PDF with classified material. No different than having a hard copy of the original document or the original PDF. Same principle..

It's a copy of a stolen item, it's not a stolen item. No receiving stolen goods involved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The media can NOT be complicit in the theft. Edward Snowden contacted the media, not the other way around. The first thing that comes to mind is the Chiquita scandal back in '98 that kind of vanished after the method of acquiring the intel by the reporters became known.

Shortly after the publication of the story, the Cincinnati Enquirer had to issue both a retraction and apologize not for the acts being untrue—but for the way in which Gallagher and McWhirter gained their information. In addition to the apology and retraction, the Cincinnati Enquirer was forced to pay Chiquita a settlement of over $10 million for damages. Both Gallagher and Ventura were convicted of stealing Chiquita’s internal voicemails—with Gallagher being immediately fired from the paper. The ruling was a clear statement that investigations of corporate wrongdoing was subject to severe punishment and should be discouraged by the example set by the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Assange is being accused of coordinating the theft of intel by Manning.

Because the newspaper's people were involved in the stealing. Nobody's saying you can't be prosecuted for stealing information, the issue is whether you can be prosecuted for simply receiving stolen information.

The mere fact that their hacking was done with good motives doesn't excuse it. It doesn't say you can't investigate corporate wrongdoing, just that you can't break the law while doing so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The media can NOT be complicit in the theft. Edward Snowden contacted the media, not the other way around. The first thing that comes to mind is the Chiquita scandal back in '98 that kind of vanished after the method of acquiring the intel by the reporters became known.

Shortly after the publication of the story, the Cincinnati Enquirer had to issue both a retraction and apologize not for the acts being untrue—but for the way in which Gallagher and McWhirter gained their information. In addition to the apology and retraction, the Cincinnati Enquirer was forced to pay Chiquita a settlement of over $10 million for damages. Both Gallagher and Ventura were convicted of stealing Chiquita’s internal voicemails—with Gallagher being immediately fired from the paper. The ruling was a clear statement that investigations of corporate wrongdoing was subject to severe punishment and should be discouraged by the example set by the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Assange is being accused of coordinating the theft of intel by Manning.

Because the newspaper's people were involved in the stealing. Nobody's saying you can't be prosecuted for stealing information, the issue is whether you can be prosecuted for simply receiving stolen information.

I'm not certain why that is the discussion because Assange is being accused of being complicit in the theft.

The mere fact that their hacking was done with good motives doesn't excuse it. It doesn't say you can't investigate corporate wrongdoing, just that you can't break the law while doing so.

Yes, thank you for repeating what I just said.

 

[repoman]

Remember the Ag-Gag bills?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/04/10/176843210/a-legal-twist-in-the-effort-to-ban-cameras-from-livestock-plants

There has to be be some limit to making information gathering illegal, even if that means hacking is legal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Remember the Ag-Gag bills?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/04/10/176843210/a-legal-twist-in-the-effort-to-ban-cameras-from-livestock-plants

There has to be be some limit to making information gathering illegal, even if that means hacking is legal.

Ag-gag laws are about criminalizing otherwise-legal means of information gathering if the result could hurt the industries they were protecting. That's a very different matter than exempting illegal means of information gathering if the motives are good.