I know they did. It’s why Assange should be safe from prosecution. That SC decision needs to be revisited. There is a tension between the desire to have a way for whistleblowers to get info to the public that WE think should be released, and for the government to protect confidential information that needs to be secret to protect the nation.
One distinction between Pentagon Papers and the current situation is that the media are currently active participants in the obtaining of state secrets. They are soliciting the information, and the persons inside government are not serving the needs of the public but seeking partisan advantage by leaking information that harms the national interest. They are leaking information that can cause death, loss of millions or billions of dollars by the taxpayers, and impact elections wrongfully. That conduct should not be shielded by the First Amendment.
One more SC justice and maybe it won’t be.
Perhaps there are Patriots at Google who have had enough...
LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership’s Dismayed Reaction
A video recorded by Google shortly after the 2016 presidential election reveals an atmosphere of panic and dismay amongst the tech giant’s leadership, coupled with a determination to thwart both the Trump agenda and the broader populist movement emerging around the globe.
The video is a full recording of Google’s first all-hands meeting following the 2016 election (these weekly meetings are known inside the company as “TGIF” or “Thank God It’s Friday” meetings). Sent to Breitbart News by an anonymous source, it features co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, VPs Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai. It can be watched in full above. It can and should be watched in full above in order to get the full context of the meeting and the statements made.
Sorry, I missed this in all the traffic. Much of what you say was true of the Pentagon Papers issue also; freedom of speech can be a bit of sticky wicket, what? One solution re: FB, Twitter et al might be to treat - and regulate - them as politically active partisan organizations. I don't have the legal expertise to string that out, but if they are going to be active politically then perhaps they should be regulated the same as other partisan political organizations.