Slashdot Mirror


Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press

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."

42 of 747 comments (clear)

  1. Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what is all this "Land of the free" I keep hearing about?

  2. Checks and Balances by RunFatBoy.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While not perfect, the media is a crucial factor in the check and balances system. Once the media is supressed, branches of the government have free reign. -- Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/

    1. Re:Checks and Balances by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "While not perfect, the media is a crucial factor in the check and balances system."

      In that case we are all in trouble. The media has long abandoned any sense of purpose or duty. It's now completely sycophantic to the politicians. Often it's just acting as a PR arm of a political party.

      Radio led the way but now all media does very little besides amplifying whatever talking points come out of the politicians.

      It's all over but the shouting now.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Checks and Balances by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As opposed to now where the president has publicly admitted to undertaking impeachable acts, with government agencies regularly breaking laws, and nothing being done about any of it?

      Sure we know about it now. That's done a lot. Perhaps we can use those Diebold voting machines, or try to vote in Florida where they deliberately send people away that statistically will vote for the opposition.

  3. Yeah whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters

    And the patriot act wasn't aimed at drug enforcement, but that certainly didn't stop it for being used for exactly that purpose.

  4. Coup by Tengoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Six or seven years ago, if I were able to read today's headlines, maybe I'd think that a Coup d'etat had occurred in the states.

    1. Re:Coup by dynamo52 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Six or seven years ago, if I were able to read today's headlines, maybe I'd think that a Coup d'etat had occurred in the states.

      No, just a facist takeover through a manipulated electoralprocess

      --
      Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
  5. Clear violation of first amendment? by mejesster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I will confess my initial reaction was pure shock and horror, however the worst case scenarios pictured in both the article and slashdotters' heads don't seem likely. It's a clear violation of the first amendment right to free speech to abridge political speech, and NO supreme court, conservative or liberal, would interpret otherwise. I will say, I'm shocked at how Republicans in Congress are pandering to this administration's bizarre and invasive agenda.

    --
    MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
    1. Re:Clear violation of first amendment? by jabbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Wrong. It is *THAT FUCKING BAD*. Read the parts of the bill that are available or have been analyzed:

      The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law. Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.

      Any Senator or Congressman who signs this bill should hang for treason. I am not joking. Signing this bill would be high treason. Full Stop.

      --
      Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
    2. Re:Clear violation of first amendment? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd rather have a few sunk ships than restrictions placed on my freedom...

      It's not a "lesser of two evils" issue, because any evil is too much. It's a "Freedom is good, this bill is evil" issue.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  6. Re:fuck by Green+Salad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Citizen: There is no need to exercise your 2nd amendment rights!

    Just like with your 2nd amendment rights...you may now exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech after the requisite 3-day waiting period from the day you file your application to speak freely.

    Don't forget to bring a valid national identification card. Your application for free speech will not be processed without valid ID.

    We just want to make sure you have a reasonable cooling off period and won't say anything dangerous to society. We'd also like to make sure that you've had no prior convictions related to saying anything dangerous before granting you permission to speak freely.

    We have preserved your rights. Now move along before I arrest you.

  7. Press is not the issue... by ucsckevin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if Media is excluded from the language of the bill, it will still have negative consequences. Primarily, I wonder how it could not stiffle or discourage whistle blowing, if said whistleblower feared running afowl of this new law. Leaks are often bad, but they are often important---otherwise the public would have no knowledge of bad policy. I would doubt, with all the trouble the patriot act had passing, that this would pass as well. Unfortunately, though, the past 20 years we've relied more and more on the courts to protect our freedoms. I wish it didn't come to that, because sometimes they mess up too (imminent domain anyone?

  8. Oh, Great! Reporters Are Exempted! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But anybody who tells them about the illegal spy program is going to end up in jail -- and the reporter will end up in jail on contempt of court charges for not ratting out his/her informant.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  9. Spineless Democrats by visualight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of them voted to renew the Patriot Act, and for a minute there I thought there was hope they'd make a big enough stink to get a few Republicans to disobey their leaders.

    If George wants this one, it'll pass too, probably with half of the Democrats voting for it.

    Doesn't the last 5 years seem almost surreal? WTF happened to our country?

    --
    Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
  10. Re:This will never fly... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or they could arrest people, hold them in jail for a while, charge them, and then before the courts can make a decision, drop charges and let them go with stern warnings. That way, the courts don't get a chance to shut them down since they have to have a real dispute, but the administration can use it to silence opponents.

    Note to self: never vote for this guy.

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  11. Re:fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What always shocks me about Americans is that they think that all their problems will be solved by voting for the other party next time. When are you people going to realize that both parties are playing for the same team?

    For those who don't believe me, I want you to try something for me. Wait until the Democrats get into power and for the post-election BS to wear off. I'll bet you a soda that they'll be pushing the same sorts of laws for the same sorts of reasons.

  12. Just like the Patriot Act by BinBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters

    And the Patriot Act is only used against terrorists.

  13. Re:fuck by arrrrg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure I'm butchering this, but the response goes something like:

    the pen is mightier than the sword ... BUT, when the pen is taken away, the sword is our only hope of getting it back.

    I'm not a gun nut, but this makes some sense to me. OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc. I guess if you'd really rather be dead than have your freedom taken away, though, go for it.

  14. The innocent have nothing to fear... by babbling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The president shouldn't have anything to worry about if he's innocent, so there's no need for this law.

    So either the "innocent people have nothing to fear" argument is flawed for the surveillance program, or the US president is far from innocent...

  15. Why you let the citizens arm by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason why you let the citizens of a nation arm themselves isn't so that you can shoot politicians when they piss you off (no matter how appealing that might sound at times). The reason why you let citizens arm themselves is two fold.

    First, bad guys will arm themselves like it not. Making arms illegal hampers their ability to arm, but they will always find their ways. Honest citizens who do not break the law on the other hand, and so when firearms are made illegal it leaves the criminals armed and the honest citizens unarmed. This is hardly an ideal state of affairs.

    Second, allowing your citizenry to arm prevents the police from holding a monopoly on force. A citizen should not have to wait for the police to show up to save them if a criminal is breaking into their house or threatening to harm them. A citizen should have the means to defend themselves, and the truth is that a firearm is pretty much it when it comes to self defense. Only a gun is going to allow a 100 pound woman be able to fight off a 200 pound man. Certainly not all citizens will choose to arm themselves, and this is of course fine, but if someone feels that their life is in danger and they do not trust the police protect them, they should have the option of defending themselves. Banning firearms is in affect telling your citizens that they can not defend themselves against criminals in any other manner then waiting for the police to show up.

    As far as revolution and the like, an armed citizenry is a populace that can inspire a little fear in politicians. In this day and age that means almost nothing because, as much as we like to bitch, our government is pretty evenhanded and fair. Most people have the things that they need to survive (and then some) and the thought of 'revolution' in the violent sense of the word is about as far from anyone's mind as you can imagine. We still have plenty of political options sitting around that we have yet to use to change things if we really want to. When the constitution was being framed this really was not true. The threat of an outside force conquering the country or even an internal force mucking things up was real. It certainly could be a real threat again in the not-so-foreseeable future.

    I consider the need for revolution remote and really don't weight it much in the gun issue. The simple right to self defense is a far more important issue to me then the need for the tools of an unlikely revolution. But, as the grand parent poster pointed out in his own lovable red neck NRA fan way, it isn't a bad thing to keep a few guns around... just in case.

    1. Re:Why you let the citizens arm by odourpreventer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you are saying is very fine in theory, but there are a few issues:

      1. The person purchasing a gun must know how to handle it.
      2. And know how to handle it in a crisis situation. Remember that the bad guy probably knows how to handle a gun better than the victim, and will assume that the victim is armed.
      3. Most people killed by gunfire (in the U.S.) are done so in domestic disputes. It is a fact: You are more likely to get shot by someone you know than by a burglar/thief/other criminal.

      Just look at that neighbour you hate. Do you really want him to carry a gun? The only thing more dangerous than an idiot is an idiot with a gun.

    2. Re:Why you let the citizens arm by pheonix · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
      Our forefathers realized that we would NEVER have succeeded in becoming a "free state" without access to guns... and therefore included a provision in their bill of rights securing that ability to keep and maintain weaponry in the form of a militia.

      All other ancillary benefits, such as an ability to hunt or protect one's self from crime is incidental to the real reason, to overthrow tyrants. If you research quotes from our forefathers and various influential persons from our country's history, you'll see that their attitudes bear this out.
      "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

      ...

      And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
      -Thomas Jefferson
  16. Believe this at your peril by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The whole thread is worrying because it presumes that the press is currently free and is under some new threat. Horseshit.

    It is convenient for people to have you think that the press is free, because it is convenient for you to be suitably mislead.

    The press is being lead around by the nose. Remember folks that these days the press (and other reporting media) are not primary there to bring you the truth. They are there to provide infotainment to piull in the advertising revenue etc. Need nice snappy "news" to compete against all those other things trying to get a slice of your time. So what happens? Reporters that don't play the game soon get blacklisted. Nothing openly stated. Just a few extra minutes delay in returning your call (so your story gets scooped) or instead of being embedded with frontline troops giving scenic footage of night rocket attacks you get embedded in the crew washing trucks down at the transport park (makes for real high viewer rating footage!).

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  17. Re:How about a proposing a bill by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Orwell, eat your heart out!

    Orwell is spinning in his grave. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We are always at war. We live in constant fear of terror attacks.

    The dystopian future I studied in high school is coming true. He erred only by two decades.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  18. Re:In about a year from now.. by babbling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US is just a mirror image of the middle east. Opposite sides of the world, both heavily driven by a religion, both despise each other.

    There are a few differences in capabilities. The US has high-tech weapons, whereas the middle-east has oil.

  19. Re:Bah, I have an idea for a law... by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The courts have been stacked with handpicked judges by this administration. What makes you think they will do anything to undermine this administration or the republican party?

    Look at how the republican judges in the supreme court betrayed all their principles of states rights in the florida election. They even wrote in the decision that this case can never be used for precedent because they don't want it thrown back in their face.

    I have no faith in the court system anymore. It's just another partisan branch of the govt now. I can predict with greater then 99% accuracy how the supremes will vote on any issue. They all simply vote their party platform.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  20. I used to think that. by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I used to believe that. I used to say to people that the Americans weren't so bad. You couldn't blame the American people for the actions of their president - after all, they voted for the other guy. I didn't have any quarrel with America itself or with the American people - I just supported regime change.

    Then... 2004. Having been lumbered with that idiot for a president, with his cabal of fascist hangers-on pulling the strings, and having seen the horrors they perpetrated together on America, and on America's global standing, and on the world in general, what did the American people do?

    They voted him in. For real this time. No question about it, Bush won that election. They looked at the record of Bush's first term and said 'Yes. This is what we want from our Presidents. We like Bush and approve of what he has done, and want four more years of the same.'

    At which point you can't blame a corrupt fascist takeover. The fascists sneaked into office via a very dodgy election, but you had the chance to get them out. But you endorsed them and voted them in again with an authentic mandate.

    It's your own stupid fault now. And the world knows it. What America does now, the ordinary American people can be directly and personally blamed for.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:I used to think that. by Lemmaling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Although the American people did reelect Bush in 2004, you have no way of knowing what their motives were. My guess is that as many people voted for Bush as a vote against Kerry, as actually voted for Bush because they support all of his politics. Kerry had some strong views on domestic policy, such as steps toward nationalized medicine, that probably made many borderline conservatives shy away from electing him.

      All I'm saying is that the post I'm responding to is one-sided and more beligerent than insightful. Although I disagree with the Bush's treatment of civil rights and his foreign policy, there were also other factors acting on people during the 2004 election. Perhaps if the Democratic - or any other - party would produce a good candidate, American's would have a better option than "choosing the lesser evil". And what you call "the lesser evil" is different for everyone anyway.

    2. Re:I used to think that. by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They voted him in.

      51% of them did. Us remaining 49% don't like your sweeping generalization.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:I used to think that. by dghcasp · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They looked at the record of Bush's first term and said 'Yes. This is what we want from our Presidents.

      I think we were watching different elections. 2004 seemed largely a referendum on whether gays should be allowed to marry, based on the exit polls they showed on TV.

      From where I watch (Canada,) a large number of voters in the US seem to be single-issue voters; voting for the candidate who agrees with their view on:

      • Should I be able to have a gun?
      • Do I support abortion rights?
      • Should gays be allowed to marry? (2004 special!)
      • Do I support labour unions?

      Also remember, although the people in office may change every few years, the lobbyists don't.

    4. Re:I used to think that. by zx75 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But when a country goes to war on the strength of what 51% of the voting population says... then I don't give a damn what the minority thinks. If you don't like the administration, then get out. I will say what I want about "Americans" as a whole because by the very founding notions of your country, your government is representative of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      If you don't like it, then it's your responsibility to change it, not mine. And as long as your government continues on the path it's been then I'll keep saying what I feel needs to be said.

      --
      This is not a sig.
  21. Re:This will never fly... by Fallingcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait a minute...

    We're being invaded? If so, where are the front lines? I'll be going there right after I go to the gun store to arm myself. Surely there are volunteer units being formed, and they may not have enough extra guns/ammo for everyone.

    What's that you say? The front lines are in another country? And it doesn't border us, nor does it have the capability to project an invasion force (or, indeed, any military force at all) to this side of the world? And we already destroyed its military anyway? So, all these threats to our nation are of a criminal rather than a military nature?

    Huh. When you said that the President has special powers in time of invasion, I thought you mean when we're being invaded, or at least when an enemy of ours is doing some kind of invading. I had no idea that this applies when our side is the only one invading other countries. How strange.

  22. Re:fuck by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc.

    You forget that the military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution. If ordered to fire on American civilians, many of them will refuse.

    I guess you don't remember the ruckus that was raised when the Clinton administration gave a survey to Marines asking if they'd be willing to fire upon American civilians in order to enforce gun control laws. Long story short, 75% of them said no. It's kind of alarming that 25% said yes.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  23. Re:fuck by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc

    Take a look at Iraq. It seems that, if they really want it, the handful of civilians have a reasonable chance.

    --

    It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
  24. Re:fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    civilian = not in army. includes terrorists.

    if the US were invaded, the civilians fighting against the occupiers would be terrorists. they would organise and form networks, if that's your distinguishing point.

    causing pain is always wrong.

  25. More importantly... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There are a few differences in capabilities. The US has high-tech weapons, whereas the middle-east has oil.

    And in the Middle East they have plenty of people who are willing - and indeed eager - to die for what they believe in. In the US they have people who are willing - and indeed eager - to give up everything they believe in to avoid the risk of dying.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  26. The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    by Dr. Lawrence Britt

    Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

    "1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

    4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

    5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

    6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

    7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

    14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are mani

  27. Re:fuck by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have obviously never been to a "free speech zone" in the US then or tried to protest outside of this zone, or just walk in the general area of said zone and not have any ID on you but be profiled as a trouble maker.

  28. broken promises by sukotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution"

    So did the President.

    --
    Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
    1. Re:broken promises by WaterBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution"

      So did the President.


      Yes, but the President is only one man. It is much easier for one man to become corrupt than a few hundred thousand. Not impossible of course, but much less likely. Especially considering the freedom of the society we have now, and have had in the past. For those freedoms to degenerate and eventually be lost leaving a tyrannical government where there was once a democratic republic, and for a few hundred thousand military personnel to support the tryanny, would probably require a recruitment program that actively searched for corruptible, or stupid, people interested only in power and wealth. Good luck keeping that one a secret.

      As frightening as the ideas in Orwell's "1984" are, I don't think the scenario is realistic. There are too many people who are too aware of and attached to their freedoms to let things slide quite that far. I'd bet even the most gun-shy Democrat would be willing to pick up a gun if it came to that, regardless of whether they thought it should be legal in times of peace and stability. Under a tyranny, all bets are off. A tyranny doesn't the citizenry, even if they are trustworthy, so why bother trying to follow their laws?

      I'm not too worried about the U.S. government decaying into tyranny. I am worried, however, that the U.S. could lose our global position and end up back where we were in the late 1800's... That is, hardly a force to be reckoned with, either militarily or economically.

  29. Re:This will never fly... by fossa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They'll use the ol' copyright trick. Keep extending the deadline each time it's about to expire. But it always has a limit yes? See, temporary. See also the PATRIOT act.

  30. Re:fuck by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guerilla warfare. It's for that exact situation: Your enemy has superior firepower, but he can't distinguish between you and random civilians, so sooner or later he will start sending out death squads, which will drive more people towards you, making life even harder for him. Things like keeping the enemy troops under constant attack and boobytrapping dead enemy soldiers work to your advantage, as well. Sooner or later the enemy soldiers desert or develop stress disorders.

    It is possible to defeat an army with only a handful of people. It's extremely messy but possible.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)