Comments on: Can NYT Be Prosecuted for Publishing Classified Info?

By: bryan

bryan — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 04:22:50 +0000

It strikes me as amusing that in a world where Apple Computer can sue bloggers into silence for talking about a product that Apple never released to the general public, this question is even debated.

Why is this amusing? Press coverage of political issues is far removed legally from publication of business trade secrets. Like it or not, it's an apples and oranges comparison.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:53:24 +0000

It strikes me as amusing that in a world where Apple Computer can sue bloggers into silence for talking about a product that Apple never released to the general public, this question is even debated.

By: Herb

Herb — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:42:07 +0000

Thunderbird:

Why wait till dawn?

By: DL

DL — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 00:57:10 +0000

What is needed is a serious discussion in congress about possible loss of second amendment protection -just enough to scare them into going straight.

On the other hand -the republicans aren't principled enough to vote on anything of controversy till they check their poll numbers for the next election -I'd give my right arm to see a bunch thrown out and replaced with people of character and conviction -Zell Miller is my role model for politicians -John McCain is as bold but without principle.

By: Herb

Herb — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 00:37:10 +0000

The prosecution of the NYT is definitely needed. For to long now, the various newspapers and magazines have run amuk with their discloser of information that never should have been published. In the NSA case, the NYT, "knowingly and wantonly" disclosed vital classified information that directly affects the securty of the entire nation. That is "Criminal" and the NYT, as well as other publishers need to be "put into thier place" and prosecuted just like any other criminal. The entire nation would be better off without this criminal rag and those who seek only to improve their own financial state.

By: legion

legion — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:09:41 +0000

I think your interpretation is closer to 'right' than Johnson's is, James. For example,

Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations.

While it might be a crime to print the results of intel operations, I've seen nothing in any of the discussed laws that makes it a crime to report the _existence_ of said operations. That said, the Pentagon Papers case did focus on prior restraint - it basically confirmed that simply _being_ classified did not necessarily mean that releasing the info was damaging... despite the fact that that's part of the _definition_ of the levels of classification, classification decisions are made by people, who make mistakes. Basically, the burden of proof is on the gov't to show damage before the court would seriously consider stopping the presses. So the PP case is not iron-clad protection for the media, but neither is it irrelevant.

By: TMH's Bacon Bits

TMH's Bacon Bits — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:16:37 +0000

Watergate in Reverse?

Could it be that we are about to see a president bring down a paper --- and not just any paper, but the Old Gray Lady herself? Probably not, but when Watergate first started it wasn't that big of a deal either

...

By: bryan

bryan — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:04:03 +0000

It is a common misconception that papers can't be prosecuted, but the Pentagon Papers case was about prior restraint, not punishment ex post facto.