Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
Prosecute them for publishing leaked information, that they obtained through illegal means. The leaker probably broke the law, so the information they have obtained is via illegal means....
If they published content that was deemed classified, do you think the first amendment still applies ?
|
It's not a crime to publish leaked information unless you're the one who leaked it. The leaker is the one who broke the law but not the people who published it. That's why Chelsea Manning went to jail, Edward Snowden is stuck in Russia but the newspapers themselves publish their leaks from New York without trouble. In fact The Guardian moved their reporting of the Snowden story from London to America precisely because of the increased protection they would have in doing so.
And yes the 1st amendment does apply here because no one at the newspaper has broken a law. They never signed the American equivalent of the Official Secrets Act.
These papers clearly think they're in the clear otherwise they wouldn't have published it and other newspapers and TV channels wouldn't have picked it up. Multiple outlets have reported the NY Times story or broken their own story. That's multiple teams of lawyers who've cleared it for publication.
Trump can try to prosecute the NY Times, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post and ABC but it seems unlikely
---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------
The source is the Independent who've really gone downhill in pursuit of clickbait but it's claimed the FBI warned MI5 about the bomber a few months ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...man_abedi_was/
Apparently this is in addition to his mosque reporting him and friends/fellow students reporting him. Looks like he slipped though the net. I think though that MI5 must get so many of these it's understandable.