Addressing Freedom Of The Press
On the heels of the New York Times treasonous decisions to run stories regarding our classified national security secrets, I have noted that many in the MSM are starting to fall back on the old "freedom of the press" argument that supposedly stands up for their right to print whatever they desire without fear of recriminations. This morning, The InstaPundit--noted law professor Glenn Reynolds--took Bill Keller to task over his arrogant statement over the weekend:
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)
Please note that he is coming out against the people who are basically telling the New York Times to keep their mouths shut. Then he has the audacity to tunr this around on us. Sort of a pseudo-blame-game of "if you people would shut up, this wouldn't be an issue." This is his way of trying to invoke some sort of "imperial" press privilege over his detractors. The Times was the paper who broke this story, and they promptly followed it up by releasing information from a classified briefing in the Pentagon about troop levels in Iraq. The Times, like most MSM outlets, continue to cite their protections under the First Amendment. We did not reveal this information. The Times did, and their idea that if we would just keep quiet about it, and it will all go away, is bravo-sierra. Even today's Times has a story regarding the administration's reaction to having its secrets revealed. And we are now on day Four since the times decided to run with this story.
Professor Reynolds does an excellent job of explaining what "freedom of the press" means in his response to Bill Keller:
A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."
The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.
And he is correct. For the press to believe that only this right is accessible to them alone is a serious misinterpretation of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights applies to all citizens, and were the Framers to have made an exclusive right--accessible to only a few--that would have been properly enumerated in the Constitution. No such provisions were made, and therefore Mr. Keller's argument is moot, and has less legs to stand on than the Democrat Party this election cycle.
Were Mr. Keller's assertions true, then we bloggers would have no rights within the news cycles to print, opine, or disseminate anything. We would not have the protections recently extended to blogs in regard to their "press credential." We report the news like any other news source, and we do not hide behind "freedom of the press" when we draw criticism. And that applies to when the government levies that critique. Anyone remember the Swift Boat Vets during the 2004 campaign? While they were a 527, and capable of utilizing their free speech as anyone else could, it was the blogs that moved them from the back of the bus--sent their by the MSM--to the forefront of the debate.
And what did the president and his allies do when questioned about them? They condemned the actions of the Swifties. By default, their criticism landed on our shoulders because we were, in essence, helping the Swifties get their message out. In fact there was a statement made a couple of months ago from Senator Trent Lott in regard to PorkBusters--a blogging coalition devoted to keeping an eye on government spending. He disliked the attention brought to bear, but like any other news source, there was little he could do to stop the bloggers.
It was a de facto move made by Senator Bill Frist to make sure that the bloggers were exempt from the CFR laws passed, and to ensure they had the same freedoms as regular news outlets when it came to elections. Now, bloggers are treated as equals to the media. (The difference is while the old media is dying a slow, painful death, we're striving and thriving.)
But does that entitle us to have the same misguided notion of "freedom of the press" that the MSM proclaims itself to have? Are we allowed to blow the lid off of classified programs that the government may be using, especially in a time of war? No. And such actions are clearly defined within the law as a crime:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
And 18 USC 798 is quite explicit in what the term "classified information" means:
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
In other words, despite Mr. Keller's postulations to the contrary, the Times had no right to publish that material. They had no right handling that material. And by publishing said material, they violated the law. Whether it was their intent to harm the nation or not is irrelevant. The above states nothing regarding intent. It specifically talks about the fact that unauthorized people aren't allowed to divulge classified material. As Mr. Keller doesn't work for the government, nor did he obtain permission to print this information, he isn't in a position to decide whether is should be divulged.
There are no protections for the press to pull this sort of garbage. And Professor Reynolds points out that the "freedom of the press" is defined as for the people, not some sort of extra privilege for the media. EVERYONE in the eyes of the Constitution is to be treated fairly and equitably within the law. There are no special granted powers or immunities for anyone unless otherwise noted. (For an example of this, refer to Article I, Section 6 dealing with the Congress' immunities.)
"Freedom of the press" is not some sort of broad protection for the press to print and say anything they choose. Even they must answer for what they decide to print and report. Libel and slander are still crimes, and the press has had suits brought against it for such transgressions. Likewise, divulging national secrets is a crime, and one in which the journalists, editors, and news outlets in question should be punished. We are not referring to heavy-handed tactics here. I am not endorsing Nazi-esque invasions of news rooms, and rounding up every journalist. However the ones who do these sorts of stories intentionally should be held to account for their actions. We know that James Risen and Eric Lichtblau made the splash at the Times with their NSA surveillance story, and wasn't it ironic that at the same time they did that story they had also finished a book regarding the same subject? Their intentions were to make money by letting a secret slip. Nice to know that prostitution is still the world's oldest profession.
For the record, the interpretation regarding the press' freedoms has been grossly exaggerated. Their freedoms extend no further than to print the stories they find. But with that in mind they are still bound by the law. And that law specifically states that no one may release any classified information to unauthorized individuals. While we, as Americans, do have a high opinion of ourselves, we are hardly "authorized" to know a damn thing about what our government is doing to protect this nation. And for Bill Keller to state--with a straight face--that this story is in the "public's interest"--makes me want to throw up. It was not in the public's interest in World War II to know of the D-Day invasion until the landings were already underway. Nor was it the public's business to know that we were working on the A-bomb in New Mexico towards the end of World War II. But it's a safe guess to say that had the New York Times known about either, and had the editorial staff and writers it does today, these two secrets would have likely been blown for all the world to see.
Marcie and I have both called for the prosecution of those at the Times, and other MSM outlets, who do this sort of "journalism." It's not reporting the news. It's being s detriment to the nation, and it's all over the petty, childish hatred of the sitting president and his administration. Hugh Hewitt stated today that the people at the Times don't hate the country. They simply hate the president, and they are so blinded by that hate that they'll do whatever it takes for them to hurt him.
Even if it means hurting the nation, which they don't really intend to do. As I stated above, their intent is a moot point. the fact of the matter is that they broke the law. They revealed secrets. If any blogger tried that, they'd be prosecuted for sure. But if the Times does it, they get a free pass? I think not. Michelle Malkin has a nice round-up of reader reactions to the Times story, and their letters to the Department of Justice calling for prosections of Times' writers and editors. If you are as ticked as we are, and as they are, then drop the DoJ a note: askdoj@usdoj.gov
Publius II
On the heels of the New York Times treasonous decisions to run stories regarding our classified national security secrets, I have noted that many in the MSM are starting to fall back on the old "freedom of the press" argument that supposedly stands up for their right to print whatever they desire without fear of recriminations. This morning, The InstaPundit--noted law professor Glenn Reynolds--took Bill Keller to task over his arrogant statement over the weekend:
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)
Please note that he is coming out against the people who are basically telling the New York Times to keep their mouths shut. Then he has the audacity to tunr this around on us. Sort of a pseudo-blame-game of "if you people would shut up, this wouldn't be an issue." This is his way of trying to invoke some sort of "imperial" press privilege over his detractors. The Times was the paper who broke this story, and they promptly followed it up by releasing information from a classified briefing in the Pentagon about troop levels in Iraq. The Times, like most MSM outlets, continue to cite their protections under the First Amendment. We did not reveal this information. The Times did, and their idea that if we would just keep quiet about it, and it will all go away, is bravo-sierra. Even today's Times has a story regarding the administration's reaction to having its secrets revealed. And we are now on day Four since the times decided to run with this story.
Professor Reynolds does an excellent job of explaining what "freedom of the press" means in his response to Bill Keller:
A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."
The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.
And he is correct. For the press to believe that only this right is accessible to them alone is a serious misinterpretation of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights applies to all citizens, and were the Framers to have made an exclusive right--accessible to only a few--that would have been properly enumerated in the Constitution. No such provisions were made, and therefore Mr. Keller's argument is moot, and has less legs to stand on than the Democrat Party this election cycle.
Were Mr. Keller's assertions true, then we bloggers would have no rights within the news cycles to print, opine, or disseminate anything. We would not have the protections recently extended to blogs in regard to their "press credential." We report the news like any other news source, and we do not hide behind "freedom of the press" when we draw criticism. And that applies to when the government levies that critique. Anyone remember the Swift Boat Vets during the 2004 campaign? While they were a 527, and capable of utilizing their free speech as anyone else could, it was the blogs that moved them from the back of the bus--sent their by the MSM--to the forefront of the debate.
And what did the president and his allies do when questioned about them? They condemned the actions of the Swifties. By default, their criticism landed on our shoulders because we were, in essence, helping the Swifties get their message out. In fact there was a statement made a couple of months ago from Senator Trent Lott in regard to PorkBusters--a blogging coalition devoted to keeping an eye on government spending. He disliked the attention brought to bear, but like any other news source, there was little he could do to stop the bloggers.
It was a de facto move made by Senator Bill Frist to make sure that the bloggers were exempt from the CFR laws passed, and to ensure they had the same freedoms as regular news outlets when it came to elections. Now, bloggers are treated as equals to the media. (The difference is while the old media is dying a slow, painful death, we're striving and thriving.)
But does that entitle us to have the same misguided notion of "freedom of the press" that the MSM proclaims itself to have? Are we allowed to blow the lid off of classified programs that the government may be using, especially in a time of war? No. And such actions are clearly defined within the law as a crime:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
And 18 USC 798 is quite explicit in what the term "classified information" means:
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
In other words, despite Mr. Keller's postulations to the contrary, the Times had no right to publish that material. They had no right handling that material. And by publishing said material, they violated the law. Whether it was their intent to harm the nation or not is irrelevant. The above states nothing regarding intent. It specifically talks about the fact that unauthorized people aren't allowed to divulge classified material. As Mr. Keller doesn't work for the government, nor did he obtain permission to print this information, he isn't in a position to decide whether is should be divulged.
There are no protections for the press to pull this sort of garbage. And Professor Reynolds points out that the "freedom of the press" is defined as for the people, not some sort of extra privilege for the media. EVERYONE in the eyes of the Constitution is to be treated fairly and equitably within the law. There are no special granted powers or immunities for anyone unless otherwise noted. (For an example of this, refer to Article I, Section 6 dealing with the Congress' immunities.)
"Freedom of the press" is not some sort of broad protection for the press to print and say anything they choose. Even they must answer for what they decide to print and report. Libel and slander are still crimes, and the press has had suits brought against it for such transgressions. Likewise, divulging national secrets is a crime, and one in which the journalists, editors, and news outlets in question should be punished. We are not referring to heavy-handed tactics here. I am not endorsing Nazi-esque invasions of news rooms, and rounding up every journalist. However the ones who do these sorts of stories intentionally should be held to account for their actions. We know that James Risen and Eric Lichtblau made the splash at the Times with their NSA surveillance story, and wasn't it ironic that at the same time they did that story they had also finished a book regarding the same subject? Their intentions were to make money by letting a secret slip. Nice to know that prostitution is still the world's oldest profession.
For the record, the interpretation regarding the press' freedoms has been grossly exaggerated. Their freedoms extend no further than to print the stories they find. But with that in mind they are still bound by the law. And that law specifically states that no one may release any classified information to unauthorized individuals. While we, as Americans, do have a high opinion of ourselves, we are hardly "authorized" to know a damn thing about what our government is doing to protect this nation. And for Bill Keller to state--with a straight face--that this story is in the "public's interest"--makes me want to throw up. It was not in the public's interest in World War II to know of the D-Day invasion until the landings were already underway. Nor was it the public's business to know that we were working on the A-bomb in New Mexico towards the end of World War II. But it's a safe guess to say that had the New York Times known about either, and had the editorial staff and writers it does today, these two secrets would have likely been blown for all the world to see.
Marcie and I have both called for the prosecution of those at the Times, and other MSM outlets, who do this sort of "journalism." It's not reporting the news. It's being s detriment to the nation, and it's all over the petty, childish hatred of the sitting president and his administration. Hugh Hewitt stated today that the people at the Times don't hate the country. They simply hate the president, and they are so blinded by that hate that they'll do whatever it takes for them to hurt him.
Even if it means hurting the nation, which they don't really intend to do. As I stated above, their intent is a moot point. the fact of the matter is that they broke the law. They revealed secrets. If any blogger tried that, they'd be prosecuted for sure. But if the Times does it, they get a free pass? I think not. Michelle Malkin has a nice round-up of reader reactions to the Times story, and their letters to the Department of Justice calling for prosections of Times' writers and editors. If you are as ticked as we are, and as they are, then drop the DoJ a note: askdoj@usdoj.gov
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home