

The "Shield" Bill, A Clear Danger to Free Speech - marcusbooster
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/opinion/04stone.html

======
dantheman
This is quite dangerous -- imagine an agent giving someone a document with
security markings removed. That person then publishes the document and can now
be prosecuted...

~~~
sage_joch
This is just a prediction, but notice how Congress will suddenly be able to
work together when it comes to passing this bill. I hope the cynic in me is
proven wrong.

------
TGJ
If Bob buys a beer and hands it to Larry who then gives it to underage Tommy,
we still say you can't do that. But if I leak confidential documents to one
person who then goes on to publish them, it's not wrong to publish them?

It's still wrong, and should be against the law, no matter how many times
removed the action is. Just because people don't like or trust the government
does not make it okay to go around publishing documents in the name of free
speech.

~~~
nlavezzo
So we should round up most of the reporters in the US, and everyone that's
talked about the leaked wires, and prosecute them? Doesn't matter how many
times removed they are, right?

The crime is the breaching of an agreement between a cleared government worker
and the government. Someone without an agreement with the government is under
no obligation to keep anything secret.

~~~
TGJ
I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. How is it that
breaking the law by the first person makes it okay for the next person? Even
if there is no law about the second persons actions, it's still wrong. Do you
simply not see it as being wrong? The whole idea is to keep the documents
private so why would it matter if the 1st or 3rd person published them? It's
still wrong, each and every time down the line.

~~~
khafra
The whole idea is to make the people who should be keeping the documents
private legally responsible, with severe consequences, for taking a specific
set of precautions to keep the documents private.

I dislike reasoning by analogy, but if you must have one, it's more like a 16
year old buying beer and then giving it to a 23 year old, who consumes it or
gives it to other people over 21.

