Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the who-needs-news? dept.

WerewolfOfVulcan writes "The Washington Post is carrying an article about a disturbing Senate bill that could make it illegal to publicly disclose even the existence of US domestic spying programs (i.e. NSA wiretaps)." An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters, but the language is ambiguous at best. From the article: "Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. 'The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,' said Martin, a civil liberties advocate."

5 of 747 comments (clear)

  1. Bill Could... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In other news, it was announced today that the "Bill could make it a crime to floss your teeth" and that the "Bill could make it a crime to use the telephone".

    How about some specific language that would actually restrict speech from a proposed bill with a remote chance of passing Congress that the Supreme Court is also likely to find constitutional, instead of one long speculation about possible dire consequences that'd never survive the most rudimentary court challenge?

    I mean, we could spend all year talking about what some theoretical bill "could" make illegal, if it only had a chance to pass Congress, the President and the Supremes.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  2. Publish in other countriies .... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    is what I was going to say, expose the crimes of the US govt on my server in London. US laws don't hold force in England.

    But then I thought a bit, Blair's head is stuck so far up Bush's ass that he would find some way of supporting his war mongering buddy.

    March this Saturday in London: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/March18.htm .

  3. Re:Your argument is stupid by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Yes, you're right. It's unfortunate that there is no competency test for gun ownership. They'll let any moron buy one.

    Why? Because the burglars weren't stupid.

    Only, apparently, when compared to you.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  4. Re:Feingold is the only one with a spine by slavemowgli · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The guy should run for Emperor, errr Potentate, errr... what's Bush's title today?

    Führer.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  5. Re:They're not all accurate. by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Would this fellow care to provide many examples of governments that aren't/weren't male dominated?

    That argument is a red herring. Women do not need female members of Congress to have their issues represented. Examples: the Violence Against Women Act, when men make up the vast majority of victums of violence. Or that more money is spent on women's health care despite the fact that the average female life span is longer by several years. Or all the draconian child support laws, whereas messing with visitation rights nets the custodial parent (read: the mom) a slap on the wrist at best.