Leaks

08/10/2017 | James Dedman

[safetysign]

wonder whether this procedure has been considered?

We know from The Pentagon Papers case that the US Sup Ct held that a "prior restraint" on the media publishing government papers was illegal under the Constitution. Let us consider the act of "publishing" to be a recognized act.

We know that the taking of classified information without approval or beyond the permissible actions is a crime, perhaps under the Espionage Act of 1917, which, I understand, is poorly drafted.

We know that one who commits a definable crime can be prosecuted. We further know that one who aids and abets the commission of a crime can be prosecuted (There are limited exceptions for certain people such as "close family members" in some crimes to protect the sanctity of the family).

So, X gives Y classified material which Y then publishes. This would be two separate acts: the distribution or passing and the publication.

If they are two separate acts and prosecuting Y for the second act would constitute a "prior restraint" and not be pemitted, what about the first act--the distribution? In order to "distribute", X wold need a Y. If that Y knowingly received classified information and knew that s/he did not have the proper clearance to receive or view that information, that receipt would be a knowing act.

So, why then would not Y be susceptible to prosecution as an accomplice to the crime of illegal distribution of classified material? Once received, Y could "legally" publish the material; but could Y ever legally receive the material in the first place. Is there a constitutional protection for the press to "investigate", or does that protection only extend to "publication"? Perhaps an easier example would be the media illegally conducting wire intercepts, a violation of Title III. How in legal terms would the hand delivered receipt of "illegal information" be different from the receipt of "illegal electronic information"?

Makes you wonder.

[safetysign]

Waiting for your responses and clarification.

[caver]

Laws don’t apply to liberals.

[z3n]

This is entirely too convoluted to me.

I think it’s much simpler then that. You are responsible for what you publish. Publishers always have been. It’s the reason why they fact-check, verify sources, and make sure that anything they publish is not false. In the case where what they publish negatively (and falsely) represents an individual or entity, they (the publisher) can be sued for it.

Interestingly enough, to me, first amendment aside, you are actually more protected as a service provider then you are as a publisher. A service provider simply offers a conduit or system for others to publisher or express their thoughts, and are generally not expected to vet everything that passes through their systems.

Now the first amendment protects the right of the press for a good reason. In the eyes of the founders, the people have a right to know what their representative government is doing and the press assists in informing them. However, as everyone well knows, the government has the right to keep secrets in the interest of national security... and I would add, in the interests of operational security. The people’s need to know is not all encompassing when it effectively impedes the government’s essential functions.

I go back to the basics. If I can be charged for receiving stolen property, even when I did not steal it, and EVEN when I was ignorant of the fact that it was stolen in the first place, then the press can be held responsible to the government for receiving, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, PUBLISHING stolen information. They are already responsible for vetting the information they receive, both for how true it is, as well as for what the implications of publishing it are. They cannot claim ignorance for publishing stolen information, and even if they could, it’s not a valid defense.

[Grampa Dave]

We need to consider what the UK has done with its Secrecy Laws and still protecting whistle blowers in certain cases:

The UK has recently revised its rather strict Secrecy Acts to protect whistle blowers in many situations. They have maintained the strict legislation for leaking certain critical issues re security of the UK.

House of Commons Library:
The UK’s recent revisions re Official Secrets protects whistle blowers re most situations.

The Official Secrets Acts and Official Secrecy
Published Tuesday, May 2, 2017

This House of Commons Library paper considers the main pieces of legislation in the UK related to official secrecy and the disclosure of information “in the public interest”. It focuses in particular on the main pieces of legislation - the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989.

Other legislation relating to the disclosure of information includes the Public Records Acts, which provide a statutory right of access to government records after a twenty-year closure period. However, these Acts also allow for records to be retained “for administrative purposes or...for any other special reason”. Risk to national security is regarded as a special reason.

Members of the public can also make requests for information from Government departments under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A Freedom of Information request must be complied with, unless one or more of the exemptions in the Act are relevant. Most exemptions are subject to a public interest test, but matters related to security bodies, e.g. the Security Service, have an absolute exemption.

Similarly, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which protects ‘whistleblowers’ who disclose information about malpractice at their workplace, also excludes disclosures relating to the security services.

Similarly, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which protects ‘whistleblowers’ who disclose information about malpractice at their workplace, also excludes disclosures relating to the security services.

The security services:

The security services themselves - that is, the Security Service (MI5); the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) - were placed under statutory control by the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence and Security Act 1994.

Excerpted. For full text go to link below:

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7422#fulllreport