He said part of the government's argument was that the anti-terror program would no longer be effective if it became known, because ..... terrorists would find other ways to move money.
"We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling," Keller said
This is a treasonous lie.
Any idiot would not be puzzled that the terrorists would find OTHER WAYS to move their money.
These newspaper traitors are not stupid; they knew exactly what they were up to.
They were warning the terrorists.
BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE TERRORISTS SIDE.
In short, the press can print what they wish.
On Mia's thread you posted this comment - and for reason's unknown, I can't seem to reply to you on that thread.
You're right on such a small technical level that for all practical purposes, you're wrong. First, you're right the New York Times can print what they want. They can print slander, lies, whatever - no one can stop them from printing what they please. But, and this is a big one, they can be sued. Taken to court. Jailed.
They can print what they want but they must take responsibility for what they print. Do you think the New York Times can print copywrited material they haven't paid for? Yes, they can. Can they be sued for it. Yes, they can. Here's what you can't do with a newspaper, you can't put a government censor in the newsroom to see what's being published. You can't censor ahead of time.
Thank God for that - Thank God there are no censors in the newsrooms -- and thank the writers of the constitution and freedom loving members of the Supreme Court while you're at it.
But not having censors in the newsroom doesn't mean that anything goes, or that anything can be printed without consequences. Sometimes the consequence is someone gets sued. Sometimes a consequence is someone goes to jail. In this case, it's possible the New York Times committed treason. If so, they can be arrested tried, and jailed. They are not above the law. Not above the law because they own a printing press.