Skip to comments.Is the Times a law unto itself?
Posted on 08/05/2017 8:47:32 AM PDT by Hojczyk
In the course of the segment Charles Krauthammer addresses the applicable law in a manner that is extremely misleading. This is what he had to say on the legal issues (my transcription):
I thought we adjudicated this in Watergate days. We have an odd system but it is a traditional one where if there is an unauthorized leak of classified information its illegal the person who goes to jail is the leaker and not the receiver [i.e., the reporter]. We do want to have some protection for the First Amendment simply because we believe that the press needs to have protections even if some of them are unwarranted on the face of it because of the larger issue of having a free press and not being subject to prosecution. I think this is a losing proposition. I think in the end the Supreme Court will likely rule as it did 30 or 40 years ago and uphold the prerogatives of the press.
James Risen and the New York Times are the ne plus ultra of the alleged immunity that Krauthammer imputes to the press under the First Amendment. Recall, for example, the Bush administrations ultimately futile plea on bended knee to Times managing editor Bill Keller et al. not to blow the National Security Agencys terrorist eavesdropping program. After sitting on the story for 13 months, the Times published the story by Risen and Eric Lichtblau on December 16, 2005. Lichtblau subsequently recounted his version of the meeting here.
On its face the story violated the Espionage Act and assisted al Qaeda. Risen and Lichtblaue were nevertheless rewarded with the Pultizer Prize for their treachery.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Than why would I get arrested if I knowlingly accept stolen property?
The press should not be given a pass on this.
The Kraut is a liberal, so you have to accept his comments in that context. But it still a “dry hole” going after the press, the leaks do need to stop at their source and the first one that’s caught and found guilty needs to go to federal prison for twenty years, make an extreme example of him or her.
Imagine if Mr. Russian actually gave Mr. Trump illegally obtained derogatory information on Hillary Rodham Clinton during the campaign.
Would a special prosecutor be justified in prosecuting Mr. Trump?
I think a lot of people in DC would say yes.
What would Mr. Trump have done with that information. Spread it via the press, etc.
What does the NY Times do with derogatory information. Spread it via its printing press, etc.
What do leftists claim to want? Equality.
I say let the NY Times have it.
The Washington Post should be served with a search Warrant on Monday morning for all documents both printed on paper in files or in notebooks and digital in what ever form including cloud files accessible from the site. No one should be permitted to enter and those forced to leave should be searched for files including thumb drives.
While there may be some law asserting publishing is no crime, aiding and abetting the transmission of classified and confidential data should be retried before the supreme court. The publishers be they the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, Comcast or CNN must be held accountable.
The Washington post must be shut down during the search even if the prolonged search takes months. The owner has lots of money so it is no big deal if he decreases the loss the paper incurs. The paper is a swamp critter.
Why are some wanting to put Julian Assange in jail?
Read what the article says about the Pentagon Papers and the Supreme Court.
In the Pentagon Papers case, a US Senator placed them in the Congressional Record.
Justice Black and others on the Supreme Court also felt that there was a public interest in publication.
NO! It thinks it is.
I would be happy just to see the traitors in a federally gated and guarded community.
As much as I hate the American Press for what they've become -= we can't take this pass away from them...
The press has way too much unintended power. We see it hourly, just look at the headlines here and “guess the source” We know damn good and well who it is. It’s not “news” it’s a political agenda, by idiots and traitors masquerading as “Journ-O-Lists” And nothing more than an attempt to influence public opinion and politicians with misinformation, lies, ridicule and blackmail.
The press doesn’t need all these protections. You “receive” illegally, you pay the price as the rest of us do. There is no difference in the First Amendment freedoms, speech by us ordinary citizens, press by the media. The standards should be the same. Screw that “actual malice” standard. It give a biased, evil media a free ride to destroy careers, spread disinformation, and to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
Media should as well be subject to the same defamation laws as the rest of us. Defamatory language hurts regardless. If we are subject to it, so should a “professional” press. Let “Journ-O-Lists” learn REAL professional ETHICS, the law of defamation, and let them act accordingly or be sued to smithereens.
Besides, they can always set aside reserves and take out insurance just like the rest of us have to. Screw them and their elitist “special treatment” They’be been shown to be a clear & present danger to our freedoms, livelihoods, government integrity, with their bias and irresponsibility. Laziness to do real investigative reporting, hiring of wet-behind-the-ears youngsters who don’t know squat about REAL life, and the incestuous relationships between the media and Big Brother Govt.
Let them do actual work and show responsibility for a change. If not, sue the bastards to oblivion. They’re too damn big for their britches anyway.
The “Press” goes beyond ‘accepting leaks’ they procure them, they ask people to commit felonies.
Yeah, my heart bleeds for the beleaguered leakers.
From an episode of M.A.S.H -——
Hawkeye: Radar, how could you tell Hotlips and Frank that? You know it was supposed to be a secret.
Radar: I couldn’t help it. They dragged it out of me.
Hawkeye: Dragged it out of you? How?
Radar: By listening.
Kennedy would side with the press, Roberts might as well. We need at least one or two more appointments before the Constitution becomes operative.