Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#21

Post by voidlogic »

FellowTraveler wrote: post #14
jetti wrote: post #2

The following really struck me: "In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. — the court whose decisions cover the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — ruled that the First Amendment provides no protection to reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them."…

Many leaks are authorized. The White House leaks all the time.

If it is authorized its not a leak. That is not to say the White House doesn't position releases of information as leaks to journalists, but even so, those releases are not actually leaks despite what they would have you believe.

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#22

Post by dragonwriter »

jpdoctor wrote: post #12

To save everyone from having to look it up: 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.

Constitutional freedom of the press is the right to publish information, not a special privilege of members of the professional media to avoid generally-applicable legal duties.

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#23

Post by MichaelSalib »

baddox wrote: post #20
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress in this instance has not made any law prohibiting a reporter from publishing a story, and reporters being required to testify is just one of a myriad of circumstances in which parties to controversies can be required to testify in one way or another.

If the freedom of the press is infringed, and the infringement was legal, that must mean Congress made a law infringing on the freedom of the press, right?

How was the freedom of the press infringed? I mean, the government requires that journalists and newspapers pay taxes, so is that another infringement?

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#25

Post by tptacek »

baddox wrote: post #20
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress in this instance has not made any law prohibiting a reporter from publishing a story, and reporters being required to testify is just one of a myriad of circumstances in which parties to controversies can be required to testify in one way or another.

If the freedom of the press is infringed, and the infringement was legal, that must mean Congress made a law infringing on the freedom of the press, right?

This is like arguing that reporters should be able to break into computers to get information for stories; after all, anything you did to criminalize that would be an infringement on the press.

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#26

Post by jessaustin »

voidlogic wrote: post #21
FellowTraveler wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many leaks are authorized. The White House leaks all the time.

If it is authorized its not a leak. That is not to say the White House doesn't position releases of information as leaks to journalists, but even so, those releases are not actually leaks despite what they would have you believe.

How can a consumer of news media tell the difference? Should we just assume they're all authorized unless someone is holed up in the Moscow airport?

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#27

Post by jessaustin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #19
andylei wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor.

> the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor. United States v. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297 (1972) [1] -- particularly relevant in the area of domestic surveillance -- disagrees with you. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases…

Surely we can say at this point that ruling is a dead letter? Lots of people are nostalgic for the freedom that some of us used to have.

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#28

Post by dragonwriter »

jessaustin wrote: post #27
dragonwriter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor. United States v. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297 (1972) [1] -- particularly relevant in the area of domestic surveillance -- disagrees with you. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases…

Surely we can say at this point that ruling is a dead letter? Lots of people are nostalgic for the freedom that some of us used to have.

> Surely we can say at this point that ruling is a dead letter?

It explicitly didn't consider foreign intelligence surveillance power, and FISA was adopted after it to limit domestic surveillance using the foreign intelligence excuse, which largely reduced the then-building pressure on the Court to resolve that issue. The loosening of FISA under the FISA Amendments Act and the subsequent mass surveillance means that the pressure is likely to return.

I wouldn't say US v. US District Court is a dead letter now. I would say that we are reaching the point where how the Supreme Court decides the issue it deferred then will determine whether it becomes a dead letter.

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#29

Post by rallison »

dragonwriter wrote: post #19
andylei wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor.

> the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor. United States v. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297 (1972) [1] -- particularly relevant in the area of domestic surveillance -- disagrees with you. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases…

The person you are replying to appears to have been going for sarcasm, not seriousness.

Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

#30

Post by baddox »

tptacek wrote: post #25
baddox wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the freedom of the press is infringed, and the infringement was legal, that must mean Congress made a law infringing on the freedom of the press, right?

This is like arguing that reporters should be able to break into computers to get information for stories; after all, anything you did to criminalize that would be an infringement on the press.

I was disputing your claim that this wasn't a first amendment violation because Congress didn't make a relevant law. Now you're arguing that this wasn't a first amendment violation because there was no infringement on the freedom of the press, which is a much more tenable argument.
Post reply on HN