Should the NY times be punished?

Question

Why or why not.

To choco...
No that's not me, it's Vincent from FFVII.

Of course I've know about freedom of the press, but this will put more people in danger because terrorists will change their money handling and not get caught as easily.

With rights come responsibilities, especially when it comes to endangering lives.

Answer 1

Its a fine line between "information" and "need to know." I think punishment might be warranted in this case because the data the government was snooping on is kept by private companies for marketing purposes anyway. Now that al queda knows they can't move money around this way it hinders the governments ability to catch people bent on killing all of us. I think they errored badly in this case; and should be punished. However I reallly think the "leak" needs to be identified and imprisoned. (even if its a Congressmen). This kind of "leak" can cost people their lives.

Answer 2

No, but they should not have done it.

Unless they obtained the information in an illegal manner, they are entitled to publish what they want.

What we need now days though is a press that actually supports our country and does not seek to undermine it every chance they get just to sell a few more papers or gain a few more viewers. The media is creating most of the percieved problems in the country today by taking insignificant things and blowing them out of proportion.

In this case, if the NYT cared for US safety, they would have not chosen to publish the article or at least stripped a lot of the information out of it that put our country in threat.

Answer 3

Anyone who says the First Amendment protects newspapers is just ignorant and wrong. The Times has to obey the law, just like everyone else.

The Comint Statute, Section 798 reads, in part:

WHOEVER knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or PUBLISHES, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any CLASSIFIED INFORMATION . . . CONCERNING THE COMMUNICATION INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added].

~~~~~~~~~~

The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law passed shortly after entering World War I, on June 15, 1917, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. It was punishable by a $10,000 fine and 20 years in prison. The legislation was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any widespread dissent in time of war constituted a real threat to an American victory.

Answer 4

You cant punish the times for reporting it (even though I believe they are more dangerous than Al Jeezera). Like the CIA Leak, subpoena the reporters involved and force them to reveal their source. If they don't throw them in jail for contempt. Do this for the leak of the NSA phone program and the financial program. The media will be more responsible in the future or people will realize they can't hide behind the title undentified source. Without sources the press can't report. This will then make the press more responsible.

Answer 5

For what, for trying to protect our Constitutional rights? That's why freedom of the press is in the First Amendment. The fact that the government is tracking bank records and money transfers is nothing new, that's how the DEA tracks drug traffickers. It may be hard to track the drugs, but the money has to go somewhere and it is easier to track.

And how would you punish them, make them pay extra taxes on each paper sold--that would be defeated based on the First Amendment (unless you make EVER paper pay that tax it would be illegal). The Bush government is punishing them the best that they can by saying "shame on you."

Answer 6

No. First Amendment rights. Plain and simple.

If anyone should be punished it is whoever is leaking the information to the media - somebody in Bush's camp doesn't like what's going on, because they keep leaking this stuff out.

That person should be punished.

Leaking classified information during a time of war is treason (right Karl Rove?). Publishing it is not (right Bob Novak?).

Answer 7

Stifling freedom of speech (or the press) in the guise of a war on terror that's meant to defend our way of life (and, thus, values such as freedom of speech) doesn't make a lot of sense. Even in wartime, the government is not free to trample upon citizen's rights with complete immunity -- the press serves as one of the checks and balances on the government's voracious appetite for power. The Bush administration, in particular, has proven to need this leveling influence.

Answer 8

For what? For reporting a story that the far right judges too "inconvenient" to show the American public? Hardly.

Maybe we should punish the NewYork Post for defending an obviously unlawful Karl Rove,among its other trashy rants.

Answer 9

Yes. The New York Times has become what the National Inquirer is. The story at all cost, even if it means undermining National Security.

Answer 10

Yes, it's a matter of national security. Wow! I never thought I would ever say that. They just helped to undermine efforts to abolish terrorism. It's like they've just spit in the faces of all the vets that have fought, survived, and died for this country and gave them the double bird.