So, under our Constitution a law that abridges that is lessens the freedom of the press to obtain information is a violation of the First Amendment if you read the plain language of the Constitution.
In addition to the abridgement of the freedom of the press to obtain information, the issuance of a subpoena to a reporter to name a source is an abridgement of the reporter's freedom to report or print or announce the news because it is an attempt to punish the reporter for refusing to remain silent about news the reporter is aware of.
It's really tough, but the national security agencies' secrecy policies are violating the Constitution when someone cannot have a fair trial due to the failure on the part of the government to produce in response to a subpoena information or the attempts by the government to intimidate the press by subpoenaing reporters' sources.
The press is virtually a fourth part of our government. The press must be independent and free if our system is to work. And in this day of the internet and easy access to paper and the means to do what used to be called setting type, the constitutional protection for the press reaches pretty far.
Government secrecy and a free society do not mix. It's probably one or the other. I choose a free society.
But there are lots of risks in a free society. If people don't want a free society, they should move to a more secure place on earth.
The point in the Bill of Rights was that the Founding Fathers believed that an overbearing, too powerful, too secretive government was more dangerous than insecurity with regard to outside or internal enemies. A government-muted or silenced press was more threatening to our country in the eyes of the Founding Fathers than was a press that was disloyal or caused insecurity to our country.
= new reply since forum marked as read
