Eastman Testifies at House Intelligence Hearing

Claremont ^ | May 26, 2006 | Matthew J. Peterson

[tbird5]

Dr. John Eastman, Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, testified today at 10:00 a.m. Eastern at a U.S. House Intelligence Committee hearing addressing whether the media can be prosecuted for publishing classified information about ongoing intelligence operations designed to prevent another terrorist attack.

Eastman argued that the First Amendment's Freedom of Press clause does not provide the institutional media a special exemption from the Espionage Act and other laws, and that enforcement of those laws is particularly important in the present assymetrical war against international terrorist organizations. A copy of his prepared testimony is available here.

More details are available at the website of the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Sounds great, thank you for post.

[Lancey Howard]

Check this out:

First Amendment Applies to Internet, Appeals Court Rules

A California appeals court ruled Friday that online reporters are protected by the same confidentiality laws that protect traditional journalists....

Expect a lot of spin from the NY Times in coming months about exactly what those "confidentiality laws that protect traditional journalists" actually "protect".

[Suzy Quzy]

Is this the same guy that is on Hugh Hewitt??? Go MR. EASTMAN!

[Suzy Quzy]

Let's see, the media and now Congress think they are above the laws that we all have to follow....hmmmmmm......BACKLASH BABY!!!!

[jazusamo]

Thanks for the post. I believe Dr. Eastman just increased the pucker factor at the New York Slimes considerably.

[FlingWingFlyer]

The pinheads in the so-called "media" are whining and crying hysterically over the release of Valerie Plame's name but they think nothing of publishing classified information about ongoing intelligence operations designed to prevent another terrorist attack.

Commie hypocrites.

[navyblue]

United States constitutionally may punish speech that produces or is intended to produce a clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils that the United States constitutionally may seek to prevent. The power undoubtedly is greater in time of war than in time of peace because war opens dangers that do not exist at other times.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

[AZRepublican]

Worth highlighting:

The second extraordinary claim made by Mr. Keller that needs to be addressed is the notion that the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press creates a special preserve for the institutionalized press, as opposed to ordinary citizens. Although this is a common understanding among reporters and newspaper editors, it is wrong.

The Freedom of the Press was designed to protect the published word of all citizens, not just an institutionalized fourth estate. As one of the anti-federalist opponents of ratification of a constitution that did not include a bill of rights noted, the liberty of the press insures that “the people have the right of expressing and publishing their sentiments upon every public measure . . . .” James Madison’s initial proposal for the First Amendment clearly expressed this common understanding, guaranteeing the right of the people “to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments.”

Roger Sherman’s own proposal a month later mirrored Madison’s: “The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into society, Such are the rights . . . of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with decency and freedom . . . . Of these rights therefore they Shall not be deprived by the government of the united States.”