SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the anyone-who-expects-to-give-up-freedom-for-security-will-get-neither dept.
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept writes A Response to Michael Kinsley
Kinsley has actually done the book a great favor by providing a vivid example of so many of its central claims. For instance, I describe in the book the process whereby the government and its media defenders reflexively demonize the personality of anyone who brings unwanted disclosure so as to distract from and discredit the substance revelations; Kinsley dutifully tells Times readers that I "come across as so unpleasant" and that I'm a "self-righteous sourpuss" (yes, he actually wrote that). I also describe in the book how jingoistic media courtiers attack anyone who voices any fundamental critiques of American political culture; Kinsley spends much of his review deriding the notion that there could possibly be anything anti-democratic or oppressive about the United States of America.
But by far the most remarkable part of the review is that Kinsley--in the very newspaper that published Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers and then fought to the Supreme Court for the right to do so (and, though the review doesn't mention it, also published some Snowden documents)--expressly argues that journalists should only publish that which the government permits them to, and that failure to obey these instructions should be a crime.
I can't say I want my government to have its fingers in what is and what is not reported.
See also: Cory Doctorow's review of Greenwald's book at BoingBoing
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NCommander on Thursday May 29 2014, @09:22AM
Its not clear from the summary, but appears that Kinsley writes for the New York Times, which was instrumental in the court cases that proved that the government could only issue prior restraint (that is to say, prevent publication) under very very specific grounds; I cited New York Times v. United States [wikipedia.org] as a case on journalist protections in the United States. There is a long history in the courts that the government can only censor in cases of "grave and irreparable" harm, as an extension of Near v. Minnesota [wikipedia.org] (another case I cited in the incorporation research).
The fact is the New York Times had a long history of going to bat against the government on issues of freedom of speech/press, and has gone to SCOTUS on dealing with such issues, in regards to the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and in dealing with maliace/liabe in New York Times v. Sullivan [wikipedia.org].
These protections have been weakened from threats like National Security Letters, but even then, NSLs have been successfully challenged in court. The fact is, in this day and age, it feels that much of the integrity that once was part of the media organizations in this country has gone. Perhaps I'm wrong, and should we be tested for a legal showdown w.r.t prior restraint, one of the media giants will step up to bat, but I suspect I would be disappointed.
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday May 29 2014, @12:33PM
It once had a history of batting against the government, but it does no longer.
The last time the NYTimes went to bat legally was in the case of Judith Miller protecting the source that told her that Valarie Plame was a spy (telling Miller that was a criminal act on the part of whoever did it). They did this because the Bush administration wanted them to.
They also held off on a story highly critical of the Bush administration for an entire year, long enough for the 2004 election to happen, solely because the Bush administration asked them to.
And remember, this is supposed to be the "liberal" media, kow-towing to the not-at-all liberal Bush crowd.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.