Slashdot Mirror
'Citizenfour' Producers Sued Over Edward Snowden Leaks
An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Hollywood Reporter:
Horace Edwards, who identifies himself as a retired naval officer and the former secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation, has filed a lawsuit in Kansas federal court that seeks a constructive trust over monies derived from the distribution of Citizenfour. Edwards ... seeks to hold Snowden, director Laura Poitras, The Weinstein Co., Participant Media and others responsible for "obligations owed to the American people" and "misuse purloined information disclosed to foreign enemies." It's an unusual lawsuit, one that the plaintiff likens to "a derivative action on behalf of the American Public," and is primarily based upon Snowden's agreement with the United States to keep confidentiality. ... Edwards appears to be making the argument that Snowden's security clearance creates a fiduciary duty of loyalty — one that was allegedly breached by Snowden's participation in the production of Citizenfour without allowing prepublication clearance review. As for the producers and distributors, they are said to be "aiding and abetting the theft and misuse of stolen government documents." The lawsuit seeks a constructive trust to redress the alleged unjust enrichment by the film. A 1980 case that involved a former CIA officer's book went up to the Supreme Court and might have opened the path to such a remedy.
This reminds me of a SLAPP ("Strategic lawsuit against public participation").
Want to be a whistle-blower? You'll lose your job, possibly go to jail (or wind up in exile), and now face being sued for "fiduciary responsibilities".
It's easy to imagine this is just one guy working on his own, but it doesn't require a large tinfoil hat to imagine that he's getting help from high places.
And it would call into question all the many times that the courts have said in the past that individual U.S. citizens have no standing to sue over stuff like the CIA torture program.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I'm going to go with "No, and Yes".
Unfortunately, US law is absurdly unfavorable to we 'the people' knowing what is actually done in our name (it's difficult enough that there's so damn much of it; but it's also deliberately obfuscated and/or hidden in assorted vital areas).
However, this guy just oozes crackpot. Nobody with a rather histrionic CV? Check. Legalbabble slurry of novel legal theories designed to dodge basic problems like "standing" and "even if Snowden is totally screwed, it's not obvious why that would make it illegal to make a movie about him". Check.
Say, when there's a class action lawsuit, one can opt out and not participate, as far as I know.
Would it be possible to "opt out" of this one? I think it would be quite the statement if suddenly a sizable portion of the US population stood up and said that they certainly do NOT want to sue Snowden et al. But reserve the right to join a countersuit...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That provision only covers money made from the information itself, and not the money made from how the information got divulged, nor information about the information.
It's a subtle but significant difference.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Did they actual show you how it violated those terms, or was it just a vague threat?
It was a vague threat, but the DoD can pull a security clearance for various reasons, which means sudden unemployment for the worker. So having ones clearance threatened is akin to be threatened with firing. Except it's a kind of firing that means you can't easily work anywhere else in that "industry" either. So it's a pretty attention-grabbing threat.
But it also shows the absurdity of the DoD leadership. They were specifically saying that people with clearances couldn't see info that everyone else on the planet could see. This kind of insanity was a major factor in me leaving the DoD. The movie "Catch 22" makes a lot more sense after you've worked with those people.