General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

66. Thank you very much.

Reply to ljm2002 (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 01:08 PM

Feb 2014

I agree that Snowden would be a very tough case for First Amendment protection. Additionally, I don't think that this Court in this time would give him that protection, even if Obama had been able to replace Kennedy or Scalia. I am no

The First Amendment issue in general is dicey, though. Overclassifying is illegal and we have a government that overclassifies. Is it always going to be unprotected speech to disclose classified info that is important for the populace to know?

For example, is it illegal to disclose an attack on a faraway village or place of worship that has already been attacked, simply because the government has classified the information? It's no secret to people in the other locale that the place has been attacked by US, only escaping the attention of people in the US.

Also, sadly, I think that the Supreme Court of Ellsberg's time might decide my hypothetical case very differently that a post-911 Supreme Court, "originalist" or not.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

223 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Like It or Not, Glenn Greenwald Is Now the Face of the 1st Amendment [View all] Titonwan Feb 2014 OP

I completely agree. As Rachel Maddow said, journalists are not terrorists. closeupready Feb 2014 #1

They are terrorists to various governments around the world - including ours. RC Feb 2014 #101

They do as much damage as terrorists when they fail to tell the truth and spread misinformation. nt kelliekat44 Feb 2014 #103

So wait! Are you saying, you think journalists can be terrorists? closeupready Feb 2014 #114

There are precedents for smear campaigns of this sort. Titonwan Feb 2014 #2

Only Greenwald, not Snowden? merrily Feb 2014 #3

Because the point is about journalism, not whistle blowing. Titonwan Feb 2014 #11

What does Gellmon have to do with my post? merrily Feb 2014 #14

I'm not here for thanks. Titonwan Feb 2014 #21

Good. Then I won't disappoint you. merrily Feb 2014 #31

How much money did the Ellsberg journalist make from the Pentagon Papers? MADem Feb 2014 #73

And yet Daniel Ellsberg thinks what Glenn and Ed has done Titonwan Feb 2014 #76

Gee, maybe he likes Nutella and the Beach Boys, too? MADem Feb 2014 #86

Here. You can buy the NYT reporter's book on the Pentagon Papers: Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2014 #123

I remember reading them for free--before the internet! MADem Feb 2014 #187

"Gee, maybe he likes Nutella and the Beach Boys, too?" merrily Feb 2014 #127

It's said to suggest that opinions are like opinions--everyone's got at least one. MADem Feb 2014 #190

He wouldn't have thought so 20 or 30 years ago. George II Feb 2014 #97

Because you actually live in Daniel's head. Titonwan Feb 2014 #146

Like YOU do, of course.... MADem Feb 2014 #192

Ellsberg wasn't the reporter. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #83

My reference was to the NYT "Ellsberg journalist"--not Ellsberg. MADem Feb 2014 #88

"idiots who don't know how to use the available whistleblower procedures" 2banon Feb 2014 #100

Just because you insist otherwise, it DOES apply. MADem Feb 2014 #183

What is this magic procedure? reusrename Feb 2014 #115

Love how people praise the "free press" when it suits the argument, but calls 'em the MADem Feb 2014 #186

Let me try this again. What is this magic procedure? reusrename Feb 2014 #202

I just told you. If you choose to not read what I write, that's your issue. MADem Feb 2014 #203

I'm sorry, I totally missed that. But what could Rand Paul do? reusrename Feb 2014 #204

They BOTH are cleared to access most if not all of the information ES possessed. MADem Feb 2014 #207

I hate to admit it, but I sort of agree with what you just said there. reusrename Feb 2014 #209

You're seeing the nuance in my argument--thank heavens! MADem Feb 2014 #210

Oh my god. Yes, someone other than the MIC might be cashing in. Pholus Feb 2014 #152

Not the thread winner Titonwan Feb 2014 #154

Lots of people are cashing in--and the MIC will get their taste, too. MADem Feb 2014 #182

Accusations of projection.... Pholus Feb 2014 #189

You're the one that tried to suggest I must be drunk or something--and that's projection. MADem Feb 2014 #191

I always do. Thanks. Pholus Feb 2014 #200

You missed the mark entirely! Don't be "sorry"--at least not for that reason! MADem Feb 2014 #201

Oh yes, I missed the mark. Pholus Feb 2014 #220

The First Amendment is much more applicable to Greenwald... ljm2002 Feb 2014 #16

I am not a fan of GG mimi85 Feb 2014 #45

Ellsberg said himself that, if it were today, he would have "jumped ship." merrily Feb 2014 #136

Ed knew full well the possible consequences... Titonwan Feb 2014 #151

Thank you very much. merrily Feb 2014 #66

We've seen these 'conservative' Supremes at work. Titonwan Feb 2014 #70

+1000 bravenak Feb 2014 #84

+1 merrily Feb 2014 #138

Yes. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #89

Westboro too. nt TheMathieu Feb 2014 #4

Westboro is the negative side of the Religious Freedoms of the 1st Amendment, not of the Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #54

All freedoms have instances of people taking it to the extreme. TheMathieu Feb 2014 #131

Really? Wow! But Westboro is not protected by press freedoms, but by religious freedoms in Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #137

Fortunately, the US Government seems to be leaving them alone. ZombieHorde Feb 2014 #181

I agree ... frazzled Feb 2014 #5

Yes, and the Constitution is the last refuge of scoundrels, closeupready Feb 2014 #10

Yeah, and extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice frazzled Feb 2014 #12

"Greenwald, as a libertarian" Titonwan Feb 2014 #20

Civil libertarian--that's what Rand Paul claims to be as well frazzled Feb 2014 #26

Yes, that's the one thing Liberals and Libertarians have in common. Titonwan Feb 2014 #32

Whoa whoa frazzled Feb 2014 #35

"Glenn Greenwald is not a liberal." Titonwan Feb 2014 #40

Although I applaud your efforts, I don't think you'll make headway with Frazzled. Maedhros Feb 2014 #107

Bill Maher is a Libertarian. Seems well-liked here. merrily Feb 2014 #125

I think that ship sailed nearly a year ago.... MADem Feb 2014 #208

Right (snort) because libertarians raise money for Democratic candidates ALL the time! Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #193

Gee, who'd think that a paleocon, xenophobic racist would view the Constitution that negatively? merrily Feb 2014 #140

Well, truth IS stranger than fiction. closeupready Feb 2014 #141

Pat Buchanan is stranger than fiction--and a lot of other things. merrily Feb 2014 #142

I like to laugh at him on the McLaughlin(g) Group Titonwan Feb 2014 #153

Yeah, what a loony 1st Amendment zealot. EOTE Feb 2014 #13

He's free to speak about whatever he wants frazzled Feb 2014 #15

He spoke about unconstitutional activities our government is engaging in EOTE Feb 2014 #28

This. ! Titonwan Feb 2014 #44

Yep...you get it. zeemike Feb 2014 #72

So, you create a strawman, hurl insults and claim it as the truth? Adrahil Feb 2014 #98

You might want to look up the definition of a strawman. EOTE Feb 2014 #110

Dude, you're creating a false argument then attacking it. STRAWMAN. Adrahil Feb 2014 #122

Dude, like, I did no such thing. Totally. EOTE Feb 2014 #124

Again you do it! Adrahil Feb 2014 #132

Again you do it! EOTE Feb 2014 #133

Daddy will protect us! Maedhros Feb 2014 #108

I know, hunh! Titonwan Feb 2014 #19

You can't miss what you don't know you don't have, right? EOTE Feb 2014 #33

Thank heaven for First Amendment zealots. merrily Feb 2014 #22

Can you believe the type of crap you hear around here? EOTE Feb 2014 #34

I'm getting used to it. merrily Feb 2014 #39

"I'm grateful as hell for both Greenwald and Snowden." Titonwan Feb 2014 #50

No, not on fire, just hot flashes. merrily Feb 2014 #134

Remember when people here were denounced as "peace purists" QC Feb 2014 #62

Yep. Because if a Democrat does it, it's good. EOTE Feb 2014 #69

For some, it's all about personalities. QC Feb 2014 #77

Or money. merrily Feb 2014 #102

So true, though we are supposed to believe that no such thing QC Feb 2014 #104

An admin said that we are supposed to believe that? merrily Feb 2014 #118

The poster you describe sounds very familiar. QC Feb 2014 #126

Turning a big ship merrily Feb 2014 #129

That's it exactly. EOTE Feb 2014 #105

It's like, "I used to think that the Fourth Amendment was important, QC Feb 2014 #109

Thread winner! Titonwan Feb 2014 #116

You saw that sloppy garage, too? What a loser Snowden is! merrily Feb 2014 #130

I'm proud to be both a "Peace Purist" as well as a "First Amendment Zeaolot." [n/t] Maedhros Feb 2014 #112

You must be wunna them there malcontents I keep hearing about. n/t QC Feb 2014 #170

Release the :ROFL: smilies* Capt. Obvious Feb 2014 #6

There are so many journalists who write unpopular things. MineralMan Feb 2014 #7

Glenn has defended some surley characters as a trial lawyer. Titonwan Feb 2014 #17

No...not just like the ACLU. He represented a white supremacist in a patent dispute with other Neo- msanthrope Feb 2014 #91

Power fears a well informed populace. Malteil Feb 2014 #85

According to Conor Friedersdorf? blue neen Feb 2014 #8

you mean the pasty white guy in undies? snooper2 Feb 2014 #9

What does skin color have to to do with it? merrily Feb 2014 #24

Huh? snooper2 Feb 2014 #29

Remember the Asian Woodcarver? Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2014 #51

Greenwald has every right to speak twice at the Cato Institute. tridim Feb 2014 #18

Of course a journalist has a right to speak at an institute. merrily Feb 2014 #23

You mean about the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal? Titonwan Feb 2014 #30

Yes, that is one of the speeches he gave at the Libertarian Cato Institute. tridim Feb 2014 #55

Were you for the wars of opportunity? Titonwan Feb 2014 #65

No, and I'm not a Libertarian like Greenwald. tridim Feb 2014 #67

Assertions require citation. Provide link, please. Titonwan Feb 2014 #74

You should really... PoliticalPothead Feb 2014 #143

Thanks for that- haven't read it as of yet. Titonwan Feb 2014 #158

You're welcome. It's a brilliant response... PoliticalPothead Feb 2014 #160

boy yo Titonwan Feb 2014 #164

No, and I'm not a Martian who breathes methane for sustenance like you. Titonwan Feb 2014 #149

About the failure of the "War on Drugs." Hissyspit Feb 2014 #52

And at the Socialism 2013 conference as well RufusTFirefly Feb 2014 #68

And be paid a stipend from them for months at a time to prepare "papers" for them. MADem Feb 2014 #78

What? Titonwan Feb 2014 #144

GG was paid by CATO for quite some time. MADem Feb 2014 #199

Papers? Plural papers? Could you point me to the other papers other than drug decriminalization that Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #196

What, you don't want his personal appearances, CATO podcasts, and conference attendances? MADem Feb 2014 #214

You've provided me nothing. He wrote one paper for CATO. That was a try. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #215

You obviously didn't click the links, so have a nice day! MADem Feb 2014 #216

I did. He wrote one paper for CATO. And it is a very good study. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #217

And he wrote a couple of essays for them on surveillance, and they publicized one of MADem Feb 2014 #219

ROFL... SidDithers Feb 2014 #25

An overt winger like bigot is the face of the 1a? ... ok... if conservatives say so uponit7771 Feb 2014 #27

I forgot the First Amendment protects only people who vote like you do. merrily Feb 2014 #36

1a protects peoples rights to recognize an opportunistic bigot and call him on it too uponit7771 Feb 2014 #41

You keep saying bigot Capt. Obvious Feb 2014 #46

Nah, but this might - link uponit7771 Feb 2014 #61

Thanks for the link Capt. Obvious Feb 2014 #64

What difference does it make if it was 6 years or 6 mins... he's a racist bigot who said he changed uponit7771 Feb 2014 #71

I'd like to read his other racist rantings Capt. Obvious Feb 2014 #75

Google "greenwald racist"... plenty... and his bullshit ass'd excuses of having different uponit7771 Feb 2014 #79

I did before you responded Capt. Obvious Feb 2014 #87

And truly. It is the only "example" they've got. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #99

This is false, and you really only need one without a change of heart which Greenwald has had NONE uponit7771 Feb 2014 #117

Then Hillary is a racist too. Same with Obama. Who cares if their positions evolved right? riderinthestorm Feb 2014 #166

Some people can change Titonwan Feb 2014 #168

Ah hahaha! Titonwan Feb 2014 #82

Glen hasn't "evolved" he excuses his racism with "conventional wisdom" as if EVERYONE thought like uponit7771 Feb 2014 #119

With an Izzy Award and a Polk Award, soon to be a Pulitzer Prize recipient. Titonwan Feb 2014 #169

So the President is allowed to "evolve" on the question of gay marriage . . . markpkessinger Feb 2014 #184

Sure. No one said otherwise. But that's not what you did in your prior post. merrily Feb 2014 #49

Yes that is a good way to describe him. He exposes hypocrites just by his sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #37

Ha! Titonwan Feb 2014 #58

Kind of like La Pierre is the voice of the 2nd amendment, Progressive dog Feb 2014 #38

You need to coordinate better Capt. Obvious Feb 2014 #42

+1 uponit7771 Feb 2014 #43

No fair copying from Reply # 5 or the OP merrily Feb 2014 #47

Yes, and pay no mind to the ankle biters. great white snark Feb 2014 #59

Thread Winner. Just ask GG how profitable his little Cha Feb 2014 #162

Of course! Glenn and Jamie Dimon have lunch, daily. Titonwan Feb 2014 #167

... Better him than Porn ... Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2014 #48

bullshit warrior1 Feb 2014 #53

He USES his sources and then tosses them away like used kleenex. VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #56

Jilted much? Titonwan Feb 2014 #145

yeah..."the drama" is right! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #195

and I didn't say hankie...I said kleenex... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #197

"used kleenex" has more class than mr profiteering fuckface. Cha Feb 2014 #178

gotta hand it to ya Cha...you have a way with words! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #198

No argument here... ReRe Feb 2014 #57

I think if you agree with someone, they are not the 'face of the 1st Amendment.' for you. stevenleser Feb 2014 #60

Oh that would be a fun argument to have, who do you hate the most Fumesucker Feb 2014 #81

The title of this artcle came from the article itself. Titonwan Feb 2014 #92

And it is wrong, as I pointed out. It's completely wrong and self-serving. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #94

How is it self serving? Titonwan Feb 2014 #120

To me it's Roger Shuler NobodyHere Feb 2014 #63

Bolded sentence is self contradictory treestar Feb 2014 #80

K & R !!! WillyT Feb 2014 #90

DURec for Greenwald, Snowden, and all the Whistle Blowers. bvar22 Feb 2014 #93

No more so than the kkk. eom. 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2014 #95

Defending Free Speech isnt about defending speech you like, its about defending speech you hate. stevenleser Feb 2014 #96

I'm sure Mr. Greenwald would agree. Titonwan Feb 2014 #111

I'm sure he wouldn't, not as much as he whines about his detractors. He's no free speech advocate stevenleser Feb 2014 #113

I see you now. Titonwan Feb 2014 #121

His detractors are using baseless smears and ridiculous strawman arguments against him. PoliticalPothead Feb 2014 #150

I want what yer smokin' Titonwan Feb 2014 #157

And you prove my point. Everyone who attacks free speech has what they think is a reason to silence stevenleser Feb 2014 #180

I care about free speech. PoliticalPothead Feb 2014 #188

This "all opinions are equal" argument is a real pantload. reusrename Feb 2014 #211

You make a great argument against something I never posited. Try again. stevenleser Feb 2014 #221

Sure you are. You are arguing that propagandists should be defended. reusrename Feb 2014 #222

Nope, that is your strawman. In no way did I say that "all arguments are equal". stevenleser Feb 2014 #223

Bullshit leftynyc Feb 2014 #106

Well, Titonwan Feb 2014 #147

They know who Snowden is leftynyc Feb 2014 #205

The vast majority of Americans are clueless about the First Amendment. reusrename Feb 2014 #212

No - they're not leftynyc Feb 2014 #213

The attacks on Greenwald are classic examples of "Shoot the messenger". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2014 #128

+1! n/t markpkessinger Feb 2014 #185

I find Greenwald to be a real prick. I don't like him. I don't think he is a good person. phleshdef Feb 2014 #135

Very fair post. merrily Feb 2014 #139

I am not now and have never been a fan of Greenwald Gothmog Feb 2014 #148

If you say so. Titonwan Feb 2014 #155

Not a commie, just over-rated Gothmog Feb 2014 #159

Obviously you haven't stepped outdoors in months. Titonwan Feb 2014 #163

I am very aware of Greenwald Gothmog Feb 2014 #165

Geez, we wouldn't accept you anyway! Titonwan Feb 2014 #171

Your advise is amusing Gothmog Feb 2014 #172

Granted Titonwan Feb 2014 #174

Neither you nor Greenwald are going to impress me Gothmog Feb 2014 #176

I will. You do the same. Titonwan Feb 2014 #177

Kicked and rec'd! nt Exciting Trip Feb 2014 #156

Summary. Titonwan Feb 2014 #161

Libertarian tax cheat pornographers have a new hero. ucrdem Feb 2014 #173

Post removed Post removed Feb 2014 #175

He is what he is, and it isn't pretty. ucrdem Feb 2014 #179

recommend frwrfpos Feb 2014 #194

because the everyone but the Greenwald cultists can smell a rat Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #206

Not even. Scuba Feb 2014 #218