Aug 11, 2006

I don't like the sound of this

The government may prosecute the recipients of leaked information, according to a federal judge.

As Patterico points out, this opens the door to prosecuting the papers that exposed the SWIFT story. My question: Why aren't we going after the actual leakers, who actually committed the crime? I think the decision to publish by the NYT and the LAT was wrong, unpatriotic and motivated by advanced-stage BDS syndrome. But it's already illegal for people who have security clearances to leak that information. A few well-publicized prosecutions might make them think twice before doing that. Instead, we go after the alleged outers of former CIA recluse Valerie Plame.

By the way, I have no problem with putting journlists behind bars for refusing to disclose sources. This does not, in my opinion, have anything to do with freedom of speech. The press, or anyone else, has the right to write or say anything they want. They do not have the right to hide behind/cover up for anonymous sources. People won't spill the beans to you without a guarantee of anonymity? Find another way to write the story. Where in the Constitution does it say the press gets extra special privileges the rest of us don't have?

Via Michelle Malkin.

No comments: