Yet another 'out of control gov't' thread: Fox News Reporter Targeted

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by classicaliberal, May 22, 2013.

  1. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #1
    When did the 1st amendment get outlawed in this country? When did our press/reporters lose the ability to seek out a story without threat of imprisonment?

    This is just the latest in a series of oversteps by our gargantuan government stepping on the toes of people simply publishing information to the public provided to them by sources.

    This is wikileaks all over again, except now it's a representative of a major news organization (one that just happens to be politically opposed to the current administration) that's being targeted, along with his family and several of his colleagues.

    Gov't is shredding the constitution in the name of keeping us safe, in the name of keeping us healthy, and fed.

    Gov't has a natural tendency to take more and more power, more and more money, more and more control over our lives. The constitution was written specifically as a clear and definitive protection against such growth... over the years, we've watered it down, redefined it, loosened the rules, and now we're paying the consequences.

    Things will only escalate from here, future administrations, whether right wing or left wing, will try to take more power. IT's their love of power and their desire to try and reach a utopian society with every problem solved by government that will do us all in... unless we're willing to stand up for liberty first and foremost.

    What do you think? Is this a serious issue, or is this yet another minor item to overlook, a unique situation that we should let slip in the name of security?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...litano_no_crime_committed_by_james_rosen.html

     
  2. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #2
    I'm not a big Fox News guy, but this is scary.
     
  3. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #3
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/o...tml?gwh=8C903F36C895B8C4B3BD22241ED1576C&_r=0

     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Well, maybe the righties will get on board the press shield law train now. It needs to happen, and it needs to shield citizen-journalists too. And while it may -- emphasis on may -- be necessary to include an exemption for national security reasons (which it sounds like this FOXagandist would have been investigated under anyway), any such exemption must be very narrowly tailored, and provide for judicial review and oversight, at a minimum.
     
  5. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #5
    Which shield law, the one Obama supported as a congressman in 2007? Or the one he one he killed as President in 2009? Oh, maybe you mean the one he claimed to support during the 2012 election? I'm not sure... but maybe you should look a little closer to home next time rather than just pointing fingers across the aisle.

     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Perhaps you chould address the merits of my post without all the post-partisan pox-on-both-houses-see-how-unbiased-I-am junk. How do you feel about the proposed national security exemption? Would any shield law with such an exception have prevented this? In light of certain theories of unitary executives and their limits --or lack thereof -- on protecting the nation, would any shield law, no matter how strong, matter a whit when your lawyers can write secret memos that "interpret the law" creatively? And yes, this includes Obama.
     
  7. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #7
    Gladly.

    I believe in the freedom of speech.

    I believe in a free press, who's primary role should be to protect the citizenry from it's government by providing information as they are able to obtain it.

    I do not believe there should be a national security exemption as it would likely be used to 'chill' whistleblowers and reporters alike. I'd rather trust the discretion of individual reporters and news agencies with this information.

    There are too many secrets in government already, and if we'd stop intervening all around the world and instead actually use our defense department as a DEFENSE... we wouldn't need to keep as many secrets.

    Secrecy only leads to one thing... abuse. Light-footed republics which put liberty first have little need for secrecy, any secrecy they do require would be much more easily obtained with a smaller government, fewer people/agencies/bureaucracies in existence/involved.
     
  8. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #8
    but...but...this is Obamas administration of transparency, openess, and fairness. :D:D:D:D

    Welcome to the real world and what we on the right have been saying fot the past 4 years.
     
  9. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    First, there is no such thing as a "freedom of the press." It's in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has regularly held that the freedoms enjoyed by the press are identical to the freedoms held by anyone. There is no way, especially in today's world of home publishing, blogs, and technology, for there to be a separately stated or defined freedom over and above freedom of speech given to individuals.

    That is important to note because members of the press do NOT have freedom from prosecution, and they cannot break the law to get a story. I do NOT know whether the FoxNews journalist worked with the person who was violating the espionage act, but if in the effort to get the story, assisted or conspired to release the information, then they were a co-conspirator.

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with insisting that our free press obeys the law.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    There you go. Personally I'd rather not see a national security exemption either. But in the current reality of the political landscape, does that strike you as in the realm of the possible? it doesnt for me, particularly when we can't even get a largely toothless shield law passed, and you need 60 vote to allow someone to take a leak in the Senate. So what then? No shield law? Or imperfect shield law?

    Also, as noted previously, how to define who qualifies as a journalist. Do bloggers count? I would argue yes, but I would expect proponents of weak or no shield laws to argue that it should be restricted to people who make a living at it, or work for a news entity.

    And on it goes. It's all well and good to seek perfection in policy, but it's not a realistic outcome of the political world we currently find ourselves in.

    Also, curious: Any examples of light-footed, liberty-heavy countries that are transparent in the manner you describe? I'd be interested in seeing what kinds of nations you would emulate.
     
  11. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #11
    I strongly agree with your point that all americans enjoy the same freedom of speech that those in the media do.

    I strongly disagree with your point that just because something is 'the law' that it is A)constituational B)moral C)the best way to proceed

    I strongly disagree with your implication that citizens and/or members of the press should be prosecuted for speech of any kind. Only oppressive governments with FAR TOO MUCH TO HIDE would every do such a thing.

    This isn't conspiracy or treason - this is a reporter doing his job. We don't live in soviet Russia, this is supposed to be a free republic.

    ----------

    I think large swings in public opinion can make changes happen faster than we realize. You're right - it's not possible with today's legislative and executive branches, but under the right circumstances I don't think it's far off. Similarly, tyranny isn't far off.

    I don't think these protections should be in any way limited to journalists. They already exist as part of the 1st amendment.

    19th century United States, without the slavery. That's all I want. Freedom for ALL MEN, no burdensome government. I think most people would be happier, more prosperous, and more safe, if we had a smaller government who took care of only our most basic needs like infrastructure, a justice system, and defense (note, not offense) which could be payed for (as it was in the day) by usage taxes alone. No property tax, no income tax.
     
  12. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    The law is the law until it is found unconstitutional. The laws that are not the best way to proceed usually are passed by Republicans, and until we get good, smart liberals in office to correct their mistakes, we're stuck with them. ;) That doesn't change the fact that the law is the law.

    You seem to miss the point. No one is being prosecuted for "speech." Do you understand that major point? No one is being prosecuted for an article they wrote, an opinion they held, or anything along those lines. The investigation dealt solely with the release of confidential classified information in violation of the espionage act. I don't care whether you are a reporter or a fisherman. If you release top secret information, you are a criminal. If you are a reporter and you assist someone in their efforts to release information, you aren't reporting information you received, you are conspiring to break the law.

    It's simple. However, in this case, the reporter was merely listed as a potential co-conspirator for the purposes of warrants.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Tyranny meaning what?

    You indeed have protections enshrined in the First Amendment, but those protections are not unlimited, nor does the Constitution cover all use conditions. Without laws to define the extent and limits of these rights, and to provide for penalties for either infringing upon or exceeding the limits of your rights, they are just intellectual constructs.

    Oh, I see. So you really do live in fantasy land, since what you seek has never actually existed. And you likely have never stopped to ask yourself why that is.
     
  14. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #14
    So, women can't vote? Because it took the 19th Amendment in 1920 for them to have a vote at the national level.

    The "ALL MEN" instead of "ALL PEOPLE" or "ALL CITIZENS" is also kind of amusing, in a 19th century way.
     
  15. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #15
    Are you referring to government as an institution, or government as in the current administration?

    I ask because you're saying "Government" and not "The government".

    Other countries with big governments, more so than the US, don't really have these issues. Maybe it's because the American people are more tolerant, with their elected representatives, than the rest of the world?

    Don't you have the Second Amendment to protect you from this "tyranny"? Where are all of the people ready to open fire and seize back control? I don't want to derail the thread into a one about guns, but those people constantly claim the Constitution protects them from "tyranny"; those same people have been claiming these are the worst scandals in modern American history.

    Where are the millions of Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights to overthrow this "tyrannical" government?
     
  16. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #16
    They also didnt have: highways, public transportation, public education, fire departments, police departments (near the scale we have, I mean), a space program, etc etc. I like to think we get something for all our taxes. But I'm ready to be proven wrong in....
    3

    2
     
  17. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #17
    That means a judge signed off on this...judges are not part of the Executive branch, for those of you that need a refresher on US Gov structure.
     
  18. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #18
    I think you need to qualify that further. Otherwise, you'd also want all women to lose the right to vote, 10 year old children could be employed in factories 12 hours a day, gays would be imprisoned, and the hamburger you buy could easily kill you from contamination (no food or workplace safety).

    Is that what you really want?

    I think you are overreacting. The White House stepped over the line--I'll give you that and I certainly think they need to be slapped back -- but think about what you are writing.
     
  19. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #19
    Wow, two threads about something similar by the same person. Could my roll of Reynold's have gone here instead?
     
  20. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #20
    Why, it's a Libertarian paradise!!
     
  21. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #21
    Liberal dogma in reference to the founders, the founding generation, is laughable at best.

    Somehow, anyone who looks with reverence at the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the leadership of George Washington, or the collective agreement among said founders that we needed a severely limited federal government which existed to regulate (make regular) trade between the states, maintain a common defense, and little else... is inevitably declared as a consequence to be a racist, a bigot, a sexist. :confused:

    It's logic that deserves no response... it's pure idiocy, similar to someone saying Bill Clinton accomplished nothing because he got a hummer from a staffer. Or saying that the collective values of modern America are worthless because we also bombed Hiroshima.

    To suggest that someone who desires a smaller government, values many of the teaching of the founders, or perhaps calls themselves a 'tea partier' somehow makes them a racist, sexist, or pro-slavery zealot is the height of absurdity. It demeans our conversation, and frankly... makes you look foolish to anyone with a lick of common sense.
     
  22. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    No, you are horribly mistaken. The reason people use terms like racist, sexist or pro-slavery zealot is because many of the positions advocated by the people who subscribe to those views are in fact racist, bigotted and pro-slavery.

    You cannot argue against the civil rights act; you cannot argue for equal protection of the laws unless you are gay; and you cannot oppose every effort to help women achieve equality without being a sexist, homophobic, bigot who would probably love to go back to the days of slavery and barefoot pregnant women in the kitchen.

    If you want to be seen as someone who advocates for equality and liberty, then you should actually do it. (edit) The alternative is to support policy arguments that are anything but equal or promoting liberty.
     
  23. chown33, May 22, 2013
    Last edited: May 22, 2013

    chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #23
    Speaking of looking foolish, you wrote this:
    19th century United States, without the slavery. That's all I want. Freedom for ALL MEN, no burdensome government. I think most people would be happier, more prosperous, and more safe, if we had a smaller government who took care of only our most basic needs like infrastructure, a justice system, and defense (note, not offense) which could be payed for (as it was in the day) by usage taxes alone. No property tax, no income tax.
    You said nothing about women voting.

    If we assume you want the 19th Amendment (or any other law from the 20th century) to be in force, then our assumption is foolish. You neither wrote nor implied that any laws or regulations enacted after the 19th century is what you wanted.

    If you assume that we should just infer you want certain laws in place, such as laws like child labor, food safety, or pollution, but without saying or suggesting what those might be, then your assumption is foolish. It's your job to state your position clearly, not ours to guess what you want.

    If you made a mistake by not saying something, common sense suggests you should go back and correct your mistake. Clarify what you wrote instead of throwing around accusations of foolishness.


    I'm not so sure that usage taxes or use fees were the sole source of government funds, be it for infrastructure, defense, or whatever. There were certainly property taxes before the Civil Ware (picking an arbitrary point in the 19th century), so if your "No property taxes" is intended to represent "19th century United States", then I question its accuracy and ask for a citation.
     
  24. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #24
    Ok ladies, lets give the poster who said he wanted a smaller government like we used to have without the slavery a break. Yeah, he didnt say women could vote or gays wouldn't be locked up but did you really expect him to go through every single social issue one by one and say they suck, too? He didn't say anything about surgery without being knocked out but I'm willing to bet he likes the way we do it now. I would like to know about the taxes versus devices we get thing though...
     
  25. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #25

    What a disappointing and pathetic series of posts. People who are losing intellectual arguments often switch instead to claiming their opponents are racists or sexists. It's convenient - that much you've proven. Impressive work gentlemen.

    +1
     

Share This Page