Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Citizenfour' Producers Sued Over Edward Snowden Leaks

Posted by Soulskill on from the indicting-a-ham-sandwich dept.

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.

8 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Does he stand a chance? by Roodvlees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    1. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?

      The government is using mass surveillance and torture, and I've seen every talking head on the subjects try to weasel out by saying "it's just metadata" or "they're just terrorists." As far as the law is concerned, it's written by weasels of the weasliest kind.
      Yes, the US government is committing acts of pure evil. Yes, they don't want us to know. What do you want to do about it?

    2. Re:Does he stand a chance? by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. If such a "fiduciary duty of loyalty" really exists, then I'd love to participate in a class-action lawsuit against a bunch of our traitorous, war-criminal politicians!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He'll be granted standing.
      Which is really grating, as we as citizens don't have standing to sue the Federal spies for illegal activities because, as the court said, we don't have standing because we can't prove we were spied on.
      Snowden's revelations give us that standing, as he's proven that they are spying on ALL of us. But try to argue that in front of a Fox-News-watching judge who thinks ISIS is running up his street, any second now.
      But they'll have no problem entertaining this suit. Because it's not about justice, it's about power. They have it all, and we have none. That's what total surveillance means. They know what we're doing, and we aren't allowed - AT ALL - to know what they're doing.
      Wait until someone who has an axe to grind starts using the Security State API.
      And it's not just about the US. We've exported surveillance tech and surveillance laws all over the world. Now we have hundreds of would-be ultimate tyrannies about to be born.

  2. I guess it's time to watch that movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There must be something worth seeing in there.

    1. Re:I guess it's time to watch that movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly, and here is where you can go see it.

  3. prior oath to defend the Constitution by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aside from the question of standing, Snowden probably would have taken this oath before taking the NSA secrecy oath:

    I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    His prior oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, takes precedence in my mind.

    1. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by IMightB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds to me likw he is upholding that oath and proctecting the Constitution against domestic enemies.