On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:42 PM, unix_fan <[email protected]> wrote: > Derek J. Balling <[email protected]> asserts:
>> Legally speaking, once it's been released by an organization purporting to >> be >>of "journalistic intent", the SCOTUS case-law protects that release of data >>into the wild. And once it's in the wild "legally", it's just "data of >>journalistic value". >> >> The leaker can face stiff penalties, but beyond that initial leaker, the >>existing case-law is pretty clearly on the side of the public, not the >>gov't. > > Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd appreciate if you > can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege exists. I don't think there's a > Woody > Allen or "journalistic intent" clause that says if Derek steals a classified > document, then gives it to me, I'm free and clear because I wasn't the person > that stole it. Or are you asserting there is? I'm open, brother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States I have not read the article above but am aware of the ruling. The extent and applicability of it to wikileaks is currently disputed by the US. Riley -- "To be interested in the changing seasons is a happier state of mind than to be hopelessly in love with spring." —George Santayana _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
