I would like to point out that there is a conflict here - namely the conflict between the first amendment and an ongoing investigation. Many of the posters here have misstated constitutional rights and quite frankly don't understand many of the rights afforded to them under the Constitution. Here's the problem if we chip away at these right, then we might not get a whistle blower on the next Watergate. For example who ever leaked the fact that we were taking prisoners to sites in Eastern Europe without any due process was a hero. That person could also be prosecuted under this very same method.
The problem is that the reporters were pinheads here. So according to your logic the person who leaked the Pentagon papers should go to jail? Just wondering where you draw the line.
Sedition? What country do you live in? Which acts a seditious? How is this event related?
Libel and slander are not "crimes" but actionable by civil suit. No prosecutor has put someone in jail for slander or libel. The difference is clear here, the person slandered or libeled brings a civil suit.
"If you work at an agency and you think there is something illegal going on the proper procedure is to call the US Attorney's office, not the New York Times. The person who does the former is a whistleblower. The person who does the latter is a criminal."
Well what do you do when the attorney general is the criminal? What recourse do you have?
I am just quoting the document itself. Is that the problem?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I suggest you spend some time reading the Federalist papers. Anonymous sources and pseudonyms were quite common in colonial America. Hence the broad blank provisions afforded the press in the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I am gonna keep quoting the Constitution till you actually read it.
Except of course for that rather broad protection afforded the press in the first amendment of the Constitution.
Let me quote it for you.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
And yes it possible to refuse to honor a subpeona - you can refuse to honor a subpeona on a number of constitional grounds. The most commonly evoked one is the 5th. So apparently to your mind the 5th amendment stopped existing?
You certainly aren't always compelled to testify. For example I give you the Fifth Amendment,
". ..nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"Reporters are not magic special people. They should abide by the same laws and rules of reasonable conduct as the rest of us."
No where did I argue that - but it's pretty clear in the text of the Constituion. It's just that the Constitution affords the press a rather special form of protection in the First Amendment. Here let me quote the relevant section of the Constitution;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See that rather broad blanket protection the press got? The press isn't required to be "reasonable." That's what the Constitution actually says. I have got no problem if you want to amend it. Just don't say that press isn't afford rights - it is.
Except what is happening here isn't that they are going after the reporters - they want to punish the whistleblower. By punishing the whistleblower, they hope to prevent future embarrassing and often illegal acts from coming to light,
If you don't like the freedoms provided by the Constitution, please feel free to move to another country such as Singapore.
Perhaps you are not familar with what the term abridging means. It doesn't say,"The press shall be free except in criminal cases." It doesn't say, "The press shall be free except in cases where the executive deems national security at stake." This is what the 1st Amendment of the Constitution says,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Please feel free to amend it if freedom of the press is so frightening to you.
SO the NY Times doesn't have that right? Or is it an abstract right that the people have but cannot actually practice. I mean I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the NY Times is part of the press. Yet that is what you are implying, namely the right is held by the People but not the NY Times. To me that argument just doesn't hold water.
"I also missed the "reporters are super-citizens above the laws" part." That's not what the Constitution actually says
Here allow me to quote the relevant section -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Using other laws to get around the prohibition on freedom of speech or press just doesn't cut it. If you do not like it, please AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
"I am really just waiting for someone to tell me why I should believe anything a reporter says when their source is completely unknown due to total anonymity."
You don't understand how anonymous sources work. The reporter knows the identity of the individual. It's anonymous because the individual doesn't want his/her name in print. For example Woodward and Bernstein knew who Deep Throat actually was - He wasn't just some random crank. Reporters anonymous sources are not unknown to the reporer.
Nope. Property has a strict legal definition. "intellectual property" covers a wide variety of rights and monopolies among them trademark, copyright and patents. Using the term intellectual property is inaccurate at best.
Nice ad homimen attack on Jeffersion though. It's also absolutely meaningless. Calling Jefferson a rapist because he had sex with his slaves is a cheap shot because you simply don't know. As far as oening slaves, it was pretty common practice among the founding fathers. Perhaps when you write a document as important as the Declaration of Independence, I will take you more seriously.
Sorry but their annual revenue was something roughly on the order of 1 Million per year ~ not multiple millions. Furthermore they got their by screwing their writers and paying them $300 per month. Weblogs inc was able to command a high multiple of annual earnings because of first mover advantage. From Wikipedia,
Weblogs, Inc. was (and is) considered the largest-scaled attempt at enterprise blogging. The network sells an inventory of display advertising space supplemented by Google AdSense. Revenue from AdSense alone was claimed to be approaching $1,000,000 USD per year.
It was also undoubtedly a standard 90/10 deal (90% stock and 10% cash) with a lockin period for the principals.
Well his details have been outed by the meta content of the jpeg. He's just dumb. Why? "He claims he doesn't care but then confesses that he dedicates quite a bit of time to covering his tracks. "I do stay up very late each night trying to make sure nobody is going to kick in my front door . . . If I do [get caught], I'm not all that worried. I've got enough money. I can always get a good lawyer."
I've got enough money? Nope as your money is proceeds from a criminal enterprise, it is most certainly going to be frozen as restitution to his victims. Even if he makes $10,000 per month, a defense of these sorts of crimes is going to cost several hundred thousand dollars. I doubt very much this guys is saving much money. He just doesn't know how much these things cost. My prediction for this guy. 5 years in "pound me in the ass" federal prison.
Ah no GMail doesn't index all your documents stored on your local machine. It indexes the email stored in google's servers to display related ads. It's apples and oranges.
Palm is a slowly deteroriating asset. Apple woul have to pump billions into it to resuscitate it. Additionally the PDA market has been slowing for the last 5 years. Why would Apple waste the money? They wouldn't but a couple of guys who own a bunch of palm stock hope it happens;->
Sorry no this is isn't the "way the government has worked for ages." I have know no idea where you got that idea. It's certainly rarely been the case in the sciences. My father in law has worked in aerospace forever (he's still working at Boeing at 67) He has noticed this administration really clamping on ideas the don't like or that don't support their ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to point out that there is a conflict here - namely the conflict between the first amendment and an ongoing investigation. Many of the posters here have misstated constitutional rights and quite frankly don't understand many of the rights afforded to them under the Constitution. Here's the problem if we chip away at these right, then we might not get a whistle blower on the next Watergate. For example who ever leaked the fact that we were taking prisoners to sites in Eastern Europe without any due process was a hero. That person could also be prosecuted under this very same method.
The problem is that the reporters were pinheads here. So according to your logic the person who leaked the Pentagon papers should go to jail? Just wondering where you draw the line.
Sedition? What country do you live in? Which acts a seditious? How is this event related?
Libel and slander are not "crimes" but actionable by civil suit. No prosecutor has put someone in jail for slander or libel. The difference is clear here, the person slandered or libeled brings a civil suit.
BSD
"If you work at an agency and you think there is something illegal going on the proper procedure is to call the US Attorney's office, not the New York Times. The person who does the former is a whistleblower. The person who does the latter is a criminal."
Well what do you do when the attorney general is the criminal? What recourse do you have?
AH none apparently in your smug little world.
I am just quoting the document itself. Is that the problem?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There you go. Dang founding fathers.
I suggest you spend some time reading the Federalist papers. Anonymous sources and pseudonyms were quite common in colonial America. Hence the broad blank provisions afforded the press in the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I am gonna keep quoting the Constitution till you actually read it.
BSD
Except of course for that rather broad protection afforded the press in the first amendment of the Constitution.
Let me quote it for you.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
And yes it possible to refuse to honor a subpeona - you can refuse to honor a subpeona on a number of constitional grounds. The most commonly evoked one is the 5th. So apparently to your mind the 5th amendment stopped existing?
BSD
You certainly aren't always compelled to testify. For example I give you the Fifth Amendment,
.nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
". .
See that pesky Constitution again.
"Reporters are not magic special people. They should abide by the same laws and rules of reasonable conduct as the rest of us."
No where did I argue that - but it's pretty clear in the text of the Constituion. It's just that the Constitution affords the press a rather special form of protection in the First Amendment. Here let me quote the relevant section of the Constitution;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See that rather broad blanket protection the press got? The press isn't required to be "reasonable." That's what the Constitution actually says. I have got no problem if you want to amend it. Just don't say that press isn't afford rights - it is.
Except what is happening here isn't that they are going after the reporters - they want to punish the whistleblower. By punishing the whistleblower, they hope to prevent future embarrassing and often illegal acts from coming to light,
If you don't like the freedoms provided by the Constitution, please feel free to move to another country such as Singapore.
Perhaps you are not familar with what the term abridging means. It doesn't say,"The press shall be free except in criminal cases." It doesn't say, "The press shall be free except in cases where the executive deems national security at stake." This is what the 1st Amendment of the Constitution says,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Please feel free to amend it if freedom of the press is so frightening to you.
SO the NY Times doesn't have that right? Or is it an abstract right that the people have but cannot actually practice. I mean I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the NY Times is part of the press. Yet that is what you are implying, namely the right is held by the People but not the NY Times. To me that argument just doesn't hold water.
"I also missed the "reporters are super-citizens above the laws" part." That's not what the Constitution actually says
Here allow me to quote the relevant section -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Using other laws to get around the prohibition on freedom of speech or press just doesn't cut it. If you do not like it, please AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
"Reporters can't be allowed the privilege of anonymous sources when they take these sorts of actions."
Fortunately it's not a priveledge but a constitutional right. I missed the "anonymous source" exmeption in the constitution.
"I am really just waiting for someone to tell me why I should believe anything a reporter says when their source is completely unknown due to total anonymity."
You don't understand how anonymous sources work. The reporter knows the identity of the individual. It's anonymous because the individual doesn't want his/her name in print. For example Woodward and Bernstein knew who Deep Throat actually was - He wasn't just some random crank. Reporters anonymous sources are not unknown to the reporer.
BSD
Perhaps if you had statistics about 1/2 of all stories "being made up." Exactly what national security secrets have been given away by newspapers?
My prediction is that this bill will never even make it out of committee. Far too many telco lobbyists on K Street to let that happen.
"Property is what we define it to be."
Nope. Property has a strict legal definition. "intellectual property" covers a wide variety of rights and monopolies among them trademark, copyright and patents. Using the term intellectual property is inaccurate at best.
Nice ad homimen attack on Jeffersion though. It's also absolutely meaningless. Calling Jefferson a rapist because he had sex with his slaves is a cheap shot because you simply don't know. As far as oening slaves, it was pretty common practice among the founding fathers. Perhaps when you write a document as important as the Declaration of Independence, I will take you more seriously.
No offense but I read Stallman's Blog and I haven't seen a single reference to the President or call him a "Shrub" so I call Bullshit on you.
It was also undoubtedly a standard 90/10 deal (90% stock and 10% cash) with a lockin period for the principals.
Well his details have been outed by the meta content of the jpeg. He's just dumb. Why?
"He claims he doesn't care but then confesses that he dedicates quite a bit of time to covering his tracks. "I do stay up very late each night trying to make sure nobody is going to kick in my front door . . . If I do [get caught], I'm not all that worried. I've got enough money. I can always get a good lawyer."
I've got enough money? Nope as your money is proceeds from a criminal enterprise, it is most certainly going to be frozen as restitution to his victims. Even if he makes $10,000 per month, a defense of these sorts of crimes is going to cost several hundred thousand dollars. I doubt very much this guys is saving much money. He just doesn't know how much these things cost. My prediction for this guy. 5 years in "pound me in the ass" federal prison.
Young and stupid.
Ah no GMail doesn't index all your documents stored on your local machine. It indexes the email stored in google's servers to display related ads. It's apples and oranges.
Palm is a slowly deteroriating asset. Apple woul have to pump billions into it to resuscitate it. Additionally the PDA market has been slowing for the last 5 years. Why would Apple waste the money? They wouldn't but a couple of guys who own a bunch of palm stock hope it happens ;->
You know what I love about Dark Dungeons? The seventies decor of the comic - it's awesome.
I suggest you spend some time actually seeing a foot in increase in sea level will do to coastal cities before you randomly spout off - here
Sorry no this is isn't the "way the government has worked for ages." I have know no idea where you got that idea. It's certainly rarely been the case in the sciences. My father in law has worked in aerospace forever (he's still working at Boeing at 67) He has noticed this administration really clamping on ideas the don't like or that don't support their ideology.