If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Turns out AP wasn't the only news outlet Obama was tapping, FOX News also was spied on. Come on Obama, you just completed the right-wing conspiracy trifecta in just two weeks, At least make it hard for them   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 241
    More: Asinine, right-wing, rosen, press freedom, conspiracy  
•       •       •

6153 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



241 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-20 12:47:12 PM

thetubameister: Dansker: thetubameister:
Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!

Freedom of the Press does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that you have the freedom to pass classified information to the press.

I'm pretty sure they weren't passing the info to themselves... the Gov't needs to find it's employee.  The individuals at the AP have every right to express whatever it knows or thinks...


I'm terribly sorry, I've made the faux pas of talking about the case described in the actual article. My bad.
 
2013-05-20 12:55:51 PM
AP is right wing? since when?
 
2013-05-20 12:56:03 PM

skullkrusher: He mischaracterized what the story is about.


I would be insulted, if I wasn't so drunk.
 
2013-05-20 01:03:30 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: givien the statistics on black men in prison, Mr. Obama has got to be sweating this now. peoeple will go to jail ove the tax records leak and when they start playing lets make a deal how many ghetto rats will roll over on the black jesus?


//over under?


WTF is this I don't even
 
2013-05-20 01:04:53 PM
I'm afraid that between this, the IRS screw up, Benghazi and a whole host of other issues the Democratic Party will have a very very difficult time in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. There are also yet to happen crisis in the next 3 years to add to this pile as well.
Perhaps it is wise that Hillary might not run afterall because she will come in as a liability and will almost certainly concede the WH to a Republican.
 
2013-05-20 01:05:03 PM
This would make me upset if I thought of Fox as a valid journalistic source.

Comparing Fox to "news" is like comparing churches to scientific laboratories. It's apples to wing nuts.
 
2013-05-20 01:17:22 PM
Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic
 
2013-05-20 01:19:33 PM
And they caught the government leak.

/Back to whargarble about how a jobs bill needs to ban abortion in order to create more jobs in child welfare offices.
 
2013-05-20 01:20:16 PM

kkinnison: Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic


Some of us are opposed to it no matter who is in office.
 
2013-05-20 01:24:16 PM

YixilTesiphon: kkinnison: Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic

Some of us are opposed to it no matter who is in office.


Shouldn't you be saving this conversation for when there's actually a story about warrantless wiretaps?
 
2013-05-20 01:37:17 PM

SuperNinjaToad: I'm afraid that between this, the IRS screw up, Benghazi and a whole host of other issues the Democratic Party will have a very very difficult time in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. There are also yet to happen crisis in the next 3 years to add to this pile as well.
Perhaps it is wise that Hillary might not run afterall because she will come in as a liability and will almost certainly concede the WH to a Republican.


You sound... concerned.
 
2013-05-20 01:41:50 PM

SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.


It could be that Plame was outed because of political reasons related to the lie that Bush made about going to war, and the AP records were seized because they put a deep cover operative in danger.

Apples and oranges.
 
2013-05-20 01:43:13 PM

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


This isn't even Partiot Act Stuff,  with a awarrant a wiretap of a phone (or these days E-mail) has been legal since mabel was a canoe, and phone RECORDS which the AP is getting pissy about have never needed a a warrant,  The Supreme court ruled long ago that Phone records and pin registers that record what umber calls a particular phone or waht calls are made from it do NOT require a warrant to search.install.  The logic is they beling to the phone company, not you, so there is no "expectation of privacy" that attaches to them
 
2013-05-20 01:46:11 PM

kkinnison: Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic


Except this has nothing to do with warrantless wiretapping, and everything to do with seizing phone records with a legal warrant.
 
2013-05-20 01:47:48 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: PreMortem: jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA:  Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

Reading is hard, for you anyway.

But that raises the issue what what news organizations can and cannot leak. The US government has done lots of legal but morally wrong things in the past. In the future should news organizations be prosecuted because they report on secret and legal but morally corrupt activities?


OTOH should news organizations hostile to the government have carte blanche to solicit and publish information damaging to national security?  The heart of this story is a leak that more or less blew the cover of an Al-qaeda double agent  who we had turned.   Whether that was fatal to him or not, it certainly badly hurt our intel gathering and made us more vulnerable to terrorist attack.  IF it is illegal for the possesors of classified information to dislcose it, at what point does soliciting those links cross over into "accessory" territory?   Is it possible to draw a line that preserves a free press AND national security?

I don;t pretend to have the answers, I'm just askin the questions
 
2013-05-20 01:50:22 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.

It could be that Plame was outed because of political reasons related to the lie that Bush made about going to war, and the AP records were seized because they put a deep cover operative in danger.

Apples and oranges.


Just give it up, man. You can't logic your way through that much derp.
 
2013-05-20 01:50:29 PM
global3.memecdn.com
 
2013-05-20 01:52:14 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.

It could be that Plame was outed because of political reasons related to the lie that Bush made about going to war, and the AP records were seized because they put a deep cover operative in danger.

Apples and oranges.


Not to mention that "Dems" were anti-leak in both cases. A better contract would have been the Manning/Wikileaks incident. Personally, the only time I might forgive someone for leaking national secrets would be if it exposed ongoing abuses. And, the leaked material would have to be limited to what was needed to expose the abuse.
 
2013-05-20 02:04:49 PM

jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill


Still better than Mittens/Ryan
 
2013-05-20 02:08:45 PM
Obtaining phone records is not the same as phone tapping, you stupid piece of farking garbage!
 
2013-05-20 02:11:58 PM

YixilTesiphon: kkinnison: Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic

Some of us are opposed to it no matter who is in office.


Are either of you opposed to acting like this is about wiretapping or lack of warrant?
 
2013-05-20 02:15:58 PM
The good part is that when the neocons start pissing themselves with fake-ass righteous anger about some trumped-up shiate they invented as a pathetic method of publicly smearing Barack, all we have to do is start laughing at how they can totally suck balls until 2016, when we will elect Hillary. I can already imagine the right-wing heads exploding over that. They'll be absolutely having kittens when they lose in 2020. By then hopefully even more of them will have died out.
 
2013-05-20 02:20:08 PM

trotsky: ShadowKamui: trotsky: MFAWG: SlothB77: The Dems have found their Nixon.

David Gregory gave Peg Noonan a pretty good slapdown yesterday when she said these were the worst abuses she'd ever seen by pointing out that Pegs used to work for Nixon

Obama so far has not:

Authorized a clown like Gordon Liddy to bungle what should have been an easy break in to the opposition's HQ and the Psychologists office of a press leak. (Nixon didn't hire Liddy, Colson and Hunt did, Liddy's still a clown act though)

Hired Cubans to act as "foot soldiers"

Authorize "Union Thugs" to beat the snot out of Tea Tard protestors in DC

Go on a witch hunt for political purposes.

Expand a war he is trying to wind down

Nixon and Obama did:

Replace nearly all of their cabinet at the second term.

Inspire irrational hatred amongst the opposition ( to be honest though, Nixon's was kind of justified as he was very well known in politics)

Say they are going to end a war. And do exactly that.

Laugh at the opposition and proceed to do exactly what they want anyway.
( I really like McGovern and the '72 race is great because McGovern was a man of principles who refused to compromise to win. Rmoney was a man of absolutely zero principles who would have compromised anything to win)

If I were Obama I would thank the right for comparing him to Nixon. Nixon, despite the dirty tricks, did many good things. Nixon was the last of the good Republicans.

He did escalate Yemen & Pakistan
And Holder definitely counts as a clown

LOLOLOL. Holder is nowhere near the level of John Mitchell or Liddy. Hell, the entire "Fast and Furious" thing was Fox's attempt to create something far bigger than it was. G. Gordon Liddy is a macho moron who farked the Nixon presidency six ways to Sunday. Even Colson admitted that Liddy went overboard in his break-ins. The right sure does love posturing macho morons who wave their guns around but can't back up shiat, don't they?

How did Obama escalate Yemen? Did he go and bomb Sau ...


Shrub wasn't bombing Yemen and Obama sure as hell escalated the drone strike program in Pakistan

And Holder is the worse AG in modern history (well maybe the labor riot Pinkerton one from the 20s is still worse) for "To Big To Jail" and HSBC, he's either the stupidest or is flat out in bed w/ the Mexican drug lords.  F&F is nothing but a derp cherry on top of that fail cake
 
2013-05-20 02:25:49 PM
What an overly left biased headline that is.  Come on submitter, you are better than that.
 
2013-05-20 02:27:43 PM

Mr_Fabulous: A subpoena is not a wiretap.

Seeking a warrant and getting one issued because of suspected wrong-doing is not "spying".

Engaging in legally authorized activities is not the same as engaging in illegal activities.

Going through proper channels, by the book, is not the same thing as "getting caught doing something wrong".

(And pointing out these stunningly obvious facts does not make me some starry-eyed fanboi cultist.)

That is all.


Yeah, I totally agree.  If we were to reform what was actually illegal to address how wrong this seems, sure.  If you're in the middle of "pretend it's Obama's fault and he's breaking the law," then you're a bad citizen.
 
2013-05-20 02:38:54 PM

Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.


Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.
 
2013-05-20 02:40:23 PM
Which do you think is worse an administration who knew nothing about it (assuming they are telling the truth) or an administration who ordered it and is now trying to distance themselves from it? Either way you go you fail which is pretty much standard operating procedure for this administration. Incompetence or injustice.
 
2013-05-20 02:43:59 PM

Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.


Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?
 
2013-05-20 02:48:26 PM

Aarontology: SilentStrider: And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.

As a general rule, that's how you can tell how full of shiat people are.

When there's more time spent on assigning blame and rabble rousing instead of taking action to make sure it can't happen again, you can tell that the people upset about it aren't that upset.


This. I'm still disgusted by it, but I don't hear the media calling for the law's repeal. I don't hear Republicans screaming about how bad the law is, and that they're going to eliminate it soon. No, I hear a lot of crying about a legal (though morally repugnant to me) search warrant.

I want the law gone, heck the whole unPatriot Act should go. The expanded FISA should be erased from the books. I'm not just against it for this instance, it's morally repugnant to me, and has been for years.

Yes, all the way back when it was first passed. I was called a liebeul terrist simpathizer, because I thought the laws we were passing were idiotic and morally wrong.

The reporters sided with Bush on this issue. They sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. The same goes for Republicans who don't have the balls to move for it's change or removal.
 
2013-05-20 02:48:57 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?


1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?
 
2013-05-20 02:50:56 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?


"Free press".
 
2013-05-20 02:53:58 PM

Profedius: Which do you think is worse an administration who knew nothing about it (assuming they are telling the truth) or an administration who ordered it and is now trying to distance themselves from it? Either way you go you fail which is pretty much standard operating procedure for this administration. Incompetence or injustice.


Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?
 
2013-05-20 02:55:12 PM
This iS all just an effort to distract the country from umbrellagate.
 
2013-05-20 02:55:55 PM

Profedius: Which do you think is worse an administration who knew nothing about it (assuming they are telling the truth) or an administration who ordered it and is now trying to distance themselves from it?


I don't see why the administration would be involved in a State Dept. leak probe, and I haven't seen anything to indicate they are doing anything to distance themselves from this case.

Incompetence or injustice.

The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice
 
2013-05-20 02:56:32 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".


You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.
 
2013-05-20 02:59:49 PM

Mr_Fabulous: A subpoena is not a wiretap.

Seeking a warrant and getting one issued because of suspected wrong-doing is not "spying".

Engaging in legally authorized activities is not the same as engaging in illegal activities.

Going through proper channels, by the book, is not the same thing as "getting caught doing something wrong".

(And pointing out these stunningly obvious facts does not make me some starry-eyed fanboi cultist.)

That is all.


Bears repeating.
 
2013-05-20 03:10:41 PM
The three big crises this week:
(1) Getting legal subpoenas to determine is a person did something illegal, who happens to be an AP reporter;
(2) The IRS investigating groups that identified themselves as political organizations to find out if they did something illegal by getting a big tax break from claiming that they were not political organizations; and
(3) Getting an embassy in Benghazi blowed up a long, long time ago.

It seems to me that the rightwinger types are really getting desperate to find something to whine about. Is that really the best they can do?
 
2013-05-20 03:11:28 PM
Oh really? A Murdoch news agency was spied on? Oh how terrible!
 
2013-05-20 03:27:00 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".

You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.


Are you serious?
 
2013-05-20 03:30:46 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?


False dichotomy.
 
2013-05-20 03:32:21 PM

Mugato: This iS all just an effort to distract the country from umbrellagate.


Wait! What is Rihanna's involvement in all these?
 
2013-05-20 03:32:28 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".

You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.

Are you serious?


Are you?

I said that a free press is fundamentally more valuable than some damn spook. Then you started herping about some vaugely related at best matter of constitutional law and you haven't stopped since.
 
2013-05-20 03:34:33 PM

This text is now purple: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

False dichotomy.


You're going to have to get a bit more specific than that, my friend.
 
2013-05-20 03:36:01 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".

You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.

Are you serious?

Are you?

I said that a free press is fundamentally more valuable than some damn spook. Then you started herping about some vaugely related at best matter of constitutional law and you haven't stopped since.


And I was wondering why you think the simple mention of "free press" (the genesis of which is the First Amendment, in case you didn't get that) gives you a get-out-of-jail free card.
 
2013-05-20 03:45:09 PM

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


The Patriot act had massive support from both republicans and democrats.
 
2013-05-20 03:45:12 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".

You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.

Are you serious?

Are you?

I said that a free press is fundamentally more valuable than some damn spook. Then you started herping about some vaugely related at best matter of constitutional law and you haven't stopped since.

And I was wondering why you think the simple mention of "free press" (the genesis of which is the First Amendment, in case you didn't get that) gives you a get-out-of-jail free card.


False premise. The first amendment allegedly protects a free press, but is hardly the origin or be all end all of the concept. "Free press" means exactly what it means. That is, a press which is free. Nothing more or less.

Also, get out of jail free card? Why would I need one? You have raised no argument at all, much less one fit to send me scampering from the thread with my tail between my legs.
 
2013-05-20 03:50:44 PM

qorkfiend: This text is now purple: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

False dichotomy.

You're going to have to get a bit more specific than that, my friend.


Belief in a free press in no way carries the connotation that such a thing "confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens." More specifically, such a requirement is specifically untrue -- anyone can be a journalist, which is why the right is interpreted broadly. The press has no rights "above and beyond those afforded to other citizens." They do tend to have lawyers on retainer and ink contracts sold by the barrel, however.
 
2013-05-20 03:52:29 PM

PreMortem: jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA:  Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.


Reading is hard, for you anyway.


That federal judge is another Chicago Fat Cat deep in his pockets.

/Scarface was the last honest bastion that city ever saw
 
2013-05-20 03:56:36 PM
So has Obama himself been implicated in any of these 'scandals' yet? With, y'know, evidence instead of "Well, he's the President so he should know ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that happens in the government because we expect Presidents to be farking omnipotent".
 
2013-05-20 03:57:49 PM

SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?


Uh, no, it's not "ok".

It is, however, legal. Just like it is legal for a judge to jail a reporter who won't reveal a source. The freedom of the press does not include the right to hide information from the authorities during an investigation of a criminal action.

Also, your memory of the Valerie Plame case is faulty. The Dems were in an uproar because the members of the Bush administration apparently leaked classified information to get revenge on an administration critic. It was clear almost right away that the more important question was who were the senior administration officials that were Novak's sources, yet the GOP seemed to want to focus on punishing Novak.

So, you are comparing the uproar over a criminal leak that outed a CIA agent, resulting in the convention of the top aide who leaked the info (Scooter Libby) and a presidential commutation of that aide's sentence with the entirely legal hunt for information to track down a leak.

No wonder you guys have a hard time understanding what is and is not a scandal.
 
Displayed 50 of 241 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report