Espionage Act endangers First Amendment rights, ACLU warns

[avaistheone1]

Source: Raw Story

Applying the US Espionage Act to third-party publishers of classified information like WikiLeaks would violate protected speech rights, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told members of the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.

"If the Espionage Act were to be applied to publishers, it would have the unconstitutional effect of infringing on the constitutionally protected speech rights of all Americans, and it would have a particularly negative effect on investigative journalism – a necessary and fundamental part of our democracy," the ACLU said in a statement (.pdf).

"In the current environment, it would be all too easy for inflamed public passions to serve as the basis for arguments to justify broadening even further the proscriptions of the law. Instead, Congress should stand clear-eyed and firm against arguments based on passion, not reason – and narrow the Espionage Act to those who leak properly classified information."

"We urge Congress to resist the urge to broaden the Espionage Act's already overbroad proscriptions and, instead, to narrow the Act’s focus to those responsible for leaking properly classified information to the detriment of our national security," they continued. "Publishers who are not involved in the leaking of classified information should be praised by our society for their contributions to public discourse, not vilified as the co-conspirators of leakers with whom they have no criminal connection."

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/espionage-act-endangers-amendment-rights-aclu-warns/

[Democrats_win]

1. It really is amazing considering that lies led us to these wars.

So their solution: make it illegal to spread the truth? 1984 double speak anyone?

[FiveGoodMen]

2. 1984 is the blueprint for BOTH parties, it seems.

[Downwinder]

3. Can somebody name a reporter or newspaper without

their own political agenda.

[bemildred]

4. Look, it's just flatly unconstitutional, or English words have no definite meaning. nt

[MikeW]

5. if the publisher pays for the information they are just as guilty

[No Elephants]

6. In what respect, Mikey?

[MikeW]

7. you cant be serious

If I pay you to commit a crime and rec. the goods (stolen and or secret or classified)

you are complicit in the crime.

[bemildred]

8. So all of our spies are criminals, if we pay them? nt

[MikeW]

9. you dont make any sense at all ... if you cant see that your as dense as a slab of granit

[bemildred]

10. Name calling is not much of an argument.

You said "If I pay you to commit a crime and rec. the goods (stolen and or secret or classified) you are complicit in the crime."

Does that apply to the US government or not?

[MikeW]

11. why in this case would it?

The US government OWNS that information.

[bemildred]

12. The US government pays spies in other countries to violate those other countries laws

by spying on them and stealing their secrets. Those other countries OWN that information. Get it?

[JackRiddler]

14. Shhh! It's legal when "we" do that.

[fascisthunter]

13. Zieg Heil!!