[Upvoted because I don't feel your downvote is fair.]
I disagree with your analogy, because the First Amendment doesn't cover buying beer for a minor. And the First Amendment isn't just some law--it's a cornerstone for our relationship with our government.
Is it "ok" to publish the secret documents? Of course not.
But allowing the government to punish third parties for publishing the documents is even less "OK"! The US government is heavily restricted because history has shown that a government will abuse the hell out of its citizens.
And sometimes this means the US government's hands are tied, and people that do "bad" things are set free. But the Founding Fathers agreed that the greater good was served in this manner... and I concur.
It sucks that the secrets got out. We need to take steps so that it won't happen again--such as not allowing people to walk out of secure areas with freakin' CD-RWs!
And finally, I have a practical argument against publisher restriction. Once the secret has been stolen, it WILL get out, and it will get out BIG. How many mirrors of WikiLeaks are there? 1000? How many of those aren't under our jurisdiction? How many are in countries unfriendly to the US? Are we going to go to war over someone's web server? No. So even if you grant the government the power to punish the publishers, you still won't keep the secrets secret.
If you want all this abusable power given to the government, I'm going to want some appreciable effect in return... and there is none in this case, so... no thanks.
I'll agree with you that it's not "ok". But that's as far as I go. It's also not "ok" for a guy who committed an unwitnessed murder to not say so on the witness stand. But I'll back his right to remain silent every time because I know in the long run the greater good is served.
Comments
[Upvoted because I don't feel your downvote is fair.]
I disagree with your analogy, because the First Amendment doesn't cover buying beer for a minor. And the First Amendment isn't just some law--it's a cornerstone for our relationship with our government.
Is it "ok" to publish the secret documents? Of course not.
But allowing the government to punish third parties for publishing the documents is even less "OK"! The US government is heavily restricted because history has shown that a government will abuse the hell out of its citizens.
And sometimes this means the US government's hands are tied, and people that do "bad" things are set free. But the Founding Fathers agreed that the greater good was served in this manner... and I concur.
It sucks that the secrets got out. We need to take steps so that it won't happen again--such as not allowing people to walk out of secure areas with freakin' CD-RWs!
And finally, I have a practical argument against publisher restriction. Once the secret has been stolen, it WILL get out, and it will get out BIG. How many mirrors of WikiLeaks are there? 1000? How many of those aren't under our jurisdiction? How many are in countries unfriendly to the US? Are we going to go to war over someone's web server? No. So even if you grant the government the power to punish the publishers, you still won't keep the secrets secret.
If you want all this abusable power given to the government, I'm going to want some appreciable effect in return... and there is none in this case, so... no thanks.
I'll agree with you that it's not "ok". But that's as far as I go. It's also not "ok" for a guy who committed an unwitnessed murder to not say so on the witness stand. But I'll back his right to remain silent every time because I know in the long run the greater good is served.