Snowdon is a dummy

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40653249/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/t/us-v-wikileaks-espionage-first-amendment/#.VBIzfsJdVNg


Stephen I. Vladeck, law professor, American University: Legally, at least, I don’t think it matters whether or not Assange is a journalist or WikiLeaks is a news organization.
The Supreme Court has long resisted the invitation to recognize special constitutional protections for journalists, at least largely because it is so difficult to draw the line between the “mainstream media” and those private citizens who seek to publish information through other means, including blogs, Twitter feeds, or, if they still exist, pamphlets. In that sense, Assange may not be that different from The New York Times or other media outlets that have republished the cables. (Indeed, this will surely be one of his arguments.)
And I think this point goes a long way to explaining why this case is potentially so momentous. Although the U.S. government has never prosecuted a reporter or a newspaper for publishing classified information, the text of the Espionage Act would seem to permit such a prosecution, and several of the Supreme Court justices who decided the Pentagon Papers case in 1971 specifically suggested that The Times and The Washington Post could be prosecuted after the fact for publishing the Pentagon Papers, even while ruling that they couldn’t be enjoined from publication.
So the real question is whether any prosecution of Assange would set a dangerous precedent for potential future prosecutions of the press, or whether the government would rely upon a novel theory that draws a clearer distinction between what Assange did here and what any number of newspapers have done both recently and in the past.

Quote:

Quote:

I don't get jokes related to terrible incidents/accidents with hundreds of dead passengers.

There is a lot you don't get, Walter.

Do you have some jokes about 9/11, Frank? On this day of remembrance, it would be nice to crack a few...

We (Europeans, you Americans were certainly aware of it) only know thanks what happened "after Snowden" about it:
U.S. threatened massive fine to force Yahoo to release data
Government’s Threat of Daily Fine for Yahoo Shows Aggressive Push for Data

Thank for posting that link and once more proving that governments unless tightly monitor and control by the public can be a far greater danger to our long terms freedoms and well being than all the terrorists on earth.

Also that Snowden was right in stating that the solution to this problem is not placing our faith in our courts but in very strong encrypting of the whole net where the people who hold the keys are the users not companies like Yahoo.

No I don't, Olivier. Do you?

Quote:

No I don't, Olivier. Do you?

Not very funny ones.

Can't help but wonder why you wrote: "On this day of remembrance, it would be nice to crack a few..."

Take it up with the Guardian. Personally, I think their judgement, on any topic, trumps yours.

So, Greenwald gets no money from writing his articles from the stolen Snowden documents? He gets no salary from the Guardian? His fame has not increased ten fold? He has written a book, is he not going to get proceeds from that? Greenwald has profited both financially and personally from the stolen Snowden documents.

The U.S. government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 a day in 2008 if it failed to comply with a broad demand to hand over user communications — a request the company believed was unconstitutional — according to court documents unsealed Thursday that illuminate how federal officials forced American tech companies to participate in the National Security Agency’s controversial PRISM program.

The documents, roughly 1,500 pages worth, outline a secret and ultimately unsuccessful legal battle by Yahoo to resist the government’s demands. The company’s loss required Yahoo to become one of the first to begin providing information to PRISM, a program that gave the NSA extensive access to records of online com­munications by users of Yahoo and other U.S.-based technology firms.

...

Central to the case was whether the Protect America Act overstepped constitutional bounds, particularly the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. An early Yahoo filing said the case was “of tremendous national importance. The issues at stake in this litigation are the most serious issues that this Nation faces today — to what extent must the privacy rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution yield to protect our national security.”

The appeals court, however, ruled that the government had put in place adequate safeguards to avoid constitutional violations.

“We caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power,” the court wrote on Aug. 22, 2008. “Rather, our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts. This is such a case.”

He gets no salary from the Guardian?

So, Greenwald gets no money from writing his articles from the stolen Snowden documents?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#Raids_and_lawsuits

The first raid took place on February 13, 1995.[17] Accompanied by Scientology
lawyers, federal marshals made several raids on the homes of individuals who were accused of posting Scientology's copyrighted materials to the newsgroup. Raids took place against Arnaldo Lerma (Virginia),[18] Lawrence A. Wollersheim and Robert Penny of FACTNet (Colorado), and Dennis Erlich (California). Internationally, raids took place against Karin Spaink (The Netherlands) and Zenon Panoussis (Sweden). In addition to filing lawsuits against individuals, Scientology also sued the Washington Post for reprinting one paragraph of the OT writings in a newspaper article, as well as several Internet service providers, including Netcom, Tom Klemesrud, and XS4ALL. It also regularly demanded the deletion of material from the Deja News archive.

Participants in alt.religion.scientology began using quotes from OT III in particular to publicize the online battle over the secret documents.[19] The story of Xenu was subsequently quoted in many publications, including news reports on CNN[20] and 60 Minutes.[21] It became the most famous reference to the OT levels, to the point where many Internet users who were not intimately familiar with Scientology had heard the story of Xenu, and immediately associated the name with Scientology. The initial strikes against Scientology's critics settled down into a series of legal battles that raged through the courts. The Electronic Frontier Foundation provided legal assistance to defendant Tom Klemesrud and his attorney Richard Horning helped find Dennis Erlich Pro Bono defense. Daily reports of the latest happenings were posted to alt.religion.scientology.

In the wake of the Scientologist actions, the Penet remailer, which had been the most popular anonymous remailer in the world until the Scientology "war" took place, was shut down. Johan Helsingius, operator of the remailer, stated that the legal protections afforded him in his country (Finland) were too thin to protect the anonymity of his users and he decided to close down the remailer as a result.[22][23][24]