On 12/09/2010 12:23 PM, Arthur Gaer wrote: > On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Riley McIntire wrote: > >> 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 > Of course it's "disputed by the US". > > The government got embarrassed by 1) not keeping proper security on their > "confidential" (and likely excessively classified) documents and 2) by the > contents of those documents. They don't want people to read them and > continue be embarrassed further, just as Nixon, the Feds and especially the > DoD didn't want anyone to read the Pentagon Papers, either. > > The government can "dispute" all they want. It's up to the courts to decide > if that disputation has any merit. And for almost 40 years the courts have > sided with "Times" and the First Amendment. So, though our increasingly > conservative courts just might decide in favor of those who want to apply > prior restraint to the reach of the First Amendment, we won't know until > there's a case that's actually adjudicated. So far a case hasn't even been > brought by the government. There's likely a reason.
Something I've found particularly amusing in and around all the arguments on both sides is that mostly they seem to be dodging the fact that if the documents have been leaked to Wikileaks, where else have they gone? You can pretty much guarantee intelligence in enemy countries (and even allied ones) are likely to have it long before Wikileaks did. The information will hardly be shocking to anyone, they're just now in a position to put on a shocked face in public. Paul _______________________________________________ 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/
