The Government has been Attacking the Press more than ever

[UCFhonors]

Shortly after entering into WWI, the US passed the Espionage Act of 1917. a Keep in mind that the Act was one vote away from the Government being able to censor the press, "Wilson still insisted it was needed: "Authority to exercise censorship over the press....is absolutely necessary to the public safety"

From 1917 to 2010, 3 leakers where charged under the act.

Obama from 2010 to 2016 charged 8 leakers under the Espionage Act.

Who wants to bet with me that Trump will charge more than 8 leakers and / or journalist under the Espionage Act in his first 4 years?

Link; unless you think PBS is fake news.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/multimedia/espionage/

 

[Sir Galahad]

Shortly after entering into WWI, the US passed the Espionage Act of 1917. a Keep in mind that the Act was one vote away from the Government being able to censor the press, "Wilson still insisted it was needed: "Authority to exercise censorship over the press....is absolutely necessary to the public safety"

From 1917 to 2010, 3 leakers where charged under the act.

Obama from 2010 to 2016 charged 8 leakers under the Espionage Act.

Who wants to bet with me that Trump will charge more than 8 leakers and / or journalist under the Espionage Act in his first 4 years?

Link; unless you think PBS is fake news.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/multimedia/espionage/

I hope Trump does get more than eight and I hope they all go to prison for the maximum.

 

[UCFhonors]

I hope Trump does get more than eight and I hope they all go to prison for the maximum.

Why do you hate Freedom of the Press and America so much?

 

[Poolside Knight]

Why do you hate Freedom of the Press and America so much?

Bc they treat Politics like their Football team. Trump is not worth defending the dark road he's taking us on & he will destroy the GOP on a National level for a Generation. His base is shrinking to the point that he'll only have alt right conspiracy nuts like @knightsagainstblmandzog left

 

[UCFhonors]

Bc they treat Politics like their Football team. Trump is not worth defending the dark road he's taking us on & he will destroy the GOP on a National level for a Generation. His base is shrinking to the point that he'll only have alt right conspiracy nuts like @knightsagainstblmandzog left

View embedded media

View embedded media

So true. This whole, defend your red or blue team to death is everything that is wrong with politics and the government.

 

[sk8knight]

Shortly after entering into WWI, the US passed the Espionage Act of 1917. a Keep in mind that the Act was one vote away from the Government being able to censor the press, "Wilson still insisted it was needed: "Authority to exercise censorship over the press....is absolutely necessary to the public safety"

From 1917 to 2010, 3 leakers where charged under the act.

Obama from 2010 to 2016 charged 8 leakers under the Espionage Act.

Who wants to bet with me that Trump will charge more than 8 leakers and / or journalist under the Espionage Act in his first 4 years?

Link; unless you think PBS is fake news.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/multimedia/espionage/

Leakers and journalists are worlds apart. You cannot equate the two and roll them up under an "attacking the press" umbrella.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

Shortly after entering into WWI, the US passed the Espionage Act of 1917. a Keep in mind that the Act was one vote away from the Government being able to censor the press, "Wilson still insisted it was needed: "Authority to exercise censorship over the press....is absolutely necessary to the public safety"

From 1917 to 2010, 3 leakers where charged under the act.

Obama from 2010 to 2016 charged 8 leakers under the Espionage Act.

Who wants to bet with me that Trump will charge more than 8 leakers and / or journalist under the Espionage Act in his first 4 years?

Link; unless you think PBS is fake news.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/multimedia/espionage/

The push for its passage is entirely due to the rise of Communism that Germany unleashed on Russia by shipping Lenin back from exile. There was legit fear among the world leaders (including Germany who propped up Lenin) that Communism would permeate through the masses.

When laws from over 100 years ago are used, it does make me wonder whether the founding fathers made a mistake in laws being permanent unless repealed. Seems far more reasonable to have an expiration (unless renewed by Congress) and to leave the Constitution and its amendments to exist in perpetuity.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Why do you hate Freedom of the Press and America so much?

Why don't you believe in being ethical?

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Leakers are not the press, so prosecuting leakers =/= prosecuting the press. There is nothing wrong with calling out the media for what they are.

 

[UCFhonors]

The push for its passage is entirely due to the rise of Communism that Germany unleashed on Russia by shipping Lenin back from exile. There was legit fear among the world leaders (including Germany who propped up Lenin) that Communism would permeate through the masses.

When laws from over 100 years ago are used, it does make me wonder whether the founding fathers made a mistake in laws being permanent unless repealed. Seems far more reasonable to have an expiration (unless renewed by Congress) and to leave the Constitution and its amendments to exist in perpetuity.

Wow that is in interesting interpretation of the Constitution.

From my understanding, the Constitution is suppose to protect people's natural / God given rights and explicitly listing what US gov't can do. I don't think Rights have expiration dates.

As our founders said, each of their own way, "A person who would trade their Liberty for security, deserves neither."

 

[UCFhonors]

Why don't you believe in being ethical?

I don't believe your snowflake feeling based "ethics" has authority over the US Constitution. People like you shout down Free Speech because it hurts your feelings or because you're scared of the boogeyman.

That's why I don't respect or care about your "ethics."

 

[UCFhonors]

Leakers and journalists are worlds apart. You cannot equate the two and roll them up under an "attacking the press" umbrella.

Oh really? Oh so?

Before, you do a knee jerk reply, think for a second. How do journalist get stories? Might want to review the Watergate scandal.... you know for a reference point - and education on the topic.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I don't believe your snowflake feeling based "ethics" has authority over the US Constitution. People like you shout down Free Speech because it hurts your feelings or because you're scared of the boogeyman.

That's why I don't respect or care about your "ethics."

What she did was done out of politics, not to defend the US constitution. She took an oath and signed legal documents to protect secret information, she chose not to because she disagrees with the politics of the new administration. That is not her right, that is not patriotism, that is unethical. Does your current employer know that you view ethics as optional if you disagree with their views? If so, you should resign or be fired.

 

[UCFhonors]

What she did was done out of politics, not to defend the US constitution. She took an oath and signed legal documents to protect secret information, she chose not to because she disagrees with the politics of the new administration. That is not her right, that is not patriotism, that is unethical. Does your current employer know that you view ethics as optional if you disagree with their views? If so, you should resign or be fired.

I have no idea who or what you are referring to.

Anyways, I have read the Constitution a few times. Never read anything protecting secret documents. But, there is this thing called Freedom of Press.

So, please stop making shit up to defend team blue.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I have no idea who or what you are referring to.

Anyways, I have read the Constitution a few times. Never read anything protecting secret documents. But, there is this thing called Freedom of Press.

So, please stop making shit up to defend team blue.

So her signing multiple documents about protecting secret information does not play into your defense of her. That tells me all I would ever need to know about you.

 

[UCFhonors]

So her signing multiple documents about protecting secret information does not play into your defense of her. That tells me all I would ever need to know about you.

Again. I don't know who she is or what you're talking about.

Your ignorance of the US Constitution tells me all that I need to know about you.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Again. I don't know who she is or what you're talking about.

Your ignorance of the US Constitution tells me all that I need to know about you.

Nice try

 

[UCFhonors]

Nice try

You need to try harder.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

Wow that is in interesting interpretation of the Constitution.

From my understanding, the Constitution is suppose to protect people's natural / God given rights and explicitly listing what US gov't can do. I don't think Rights have expiration dates.

As our founders said, each of their own way, "A person who would trade their Liberty for security, deserves neither."

You misunderstood. I said the Constitution and Amendments would last forever, but congressional laws would have an end date.

 

[Ace of Knights]

@UCFhonors. People who don't go to practice will just never understand.

 

[Sir Galahad]

You need to try harder.

No I really don't, as I said I know all I need to know about you.

 

[Jedi.Knight]

Loaded thread from a nutjob poster; time to hijack and derail this mf'er.

BTW, speaking of loaded, what do you guys put on your loaded nachos? I go with as many toppings as possible but prefer Doritos instead of plain old tortilla chips.

 

[sk8knight]

Oh really? Oh so?

Before, you do a knee jerk reply, think for a second. How do journalist get stories? Might want to review the Watergate scandal.... you know for a reference point - and education on the topic.

Wow, you should tone down the condescension when you are obviously ignorant about what it means to hold a security clearance.

When you apply for a clearance, you are committing under oath to protect the information that you are handling. You are committing to abide by all the laws and rules pertaining to classified data. You are swearing to report any unintentional viewing of data, any mishandling, any spillage. You get trained regularly in proper data handling, have to refresh your commitment regularly, and should be in a community where people are keenly aware of how to handle classified data or not. Especially at any of the 3-letter agencies. This woman intentionally accessed data outside of her job without a need to know and then intentionally shared that with an uncleared third party. That is espionage. It doesn't matter if the recipient is a foreign actor or the press. She swore under oath not to commit these actions and then commenced anyways. She is not a hero. She is a criminal.

As for oversight and whistleblower channels, there are a great many avenues to pursue if you think you have to report something. Taking it to a reporter, or Wikileaks, is almost the worst course of action. People who are going this route are looking for the glory. They may act all altruistic, but they are violating their vows, federal law, and stupidly endangering people around the world. They know that the media is going to laud their courage. Mark Felt was wrong to do what he did. Even Woodward and Bernstein described him as an incurable gossip. He also collaborated with them before the Watergate leaks, so it wasn't like that one event was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Classified data isn't classified to keep America from seeing it. Classified data is restricted to keep our enemies from seeing it, We elect representatives who have oversight on intel to protect our interests. Other elected officials appoint a wide range of people, from analysts to judges to oversee the intelligence system. These are our checks and balances. Not the media, who have no context to interpret the smidgen of data that they may get out of context and who are increasingly incentivized to sensationalism and strife rather than propriety and ethics.

 

[Knight_Light]

Wow, you should tone down the condescension when you are obviously ignorant about what it means to hold a security clearance.

When you apply for a clearance, you are committing under oath to protect the information that you are handling. You are committing to abide by all the laws and rules pertaining to classified data. You are swearing to report any unintentional viewing of data, any mishandling, any spillage. You get trained regularly in proper data handling, have to refresh your commitment regularly, and should be in a community where people are keenly aware of how to handle classified data or not. Especially at any of the 3-letter agencies. This woman intentionally accessed data outside of her job without a need to know and then intentionally shared that with an uncleared third party. That is espionage. It doesn't matter if the recipient is a foreign actor or the press. She swore under oath not to commit these actions and then commenced anyways. She is not a hero. She is a criminal.

As for oversight and whistleblower channels, there are a great many avenues to pursue if you think you have to report something. Taking it to a reporter, or Wikileaks, is almost the worst course of action. People who are going this route are looking for the glory. They may act all altruistic, but they are violating their vows, federal law, and stupidly endangering people around the world. They know that the media is going to laud their courage. Mark Felt was wrong to do what he did. Even Woodward and Bernstein described him as an incurable gossip. He also collaborated with them before the Watergate leaks, so it wasn't like that one event was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Classified data isn't classified to keep America from seeing it. Classified data is restricted to keep our enemies from seeing it, We elect representatives who have oversight on intel to protect our interests. Other elected officials appoint a wide range of people, from analysts to judges to oversee the intelligence system. These are our checks and balances. Not the media, who have no context to interpret the smidgen of data that they may get out of context and who are increasingly incentivized to sensationalism and strife rather than propriety and ethics.

Very good post. Would read again.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Wow, you should tone down the condescension when you are obviously ignorant about what it means to hold a security clearance.

When you apply for a clearance, you are committing under oath to protect the information that you are handling. You are committing to abide by all the laws and rules pertaining to classified data. You are swearing to report any unintentional viewing of data, any mishandling, any spillage. You get trained regularly in proper data handling, have to refresh your commitment regularly, and should be in a community where people are keenly aware of how to handle classified data or not. Especially at any of the 3-letter agencies. This woman intentionally accessed data outside of her job without a need to know and then intentionally shared that with an uncleared third party. That is espionage. It doesn't matter if the recipient is a foreign actor or the press. She swore under oath not to commit these actions and then commenced anyways. She is not a hero. She is a criminal.

As for oversight and whistleblower channels, there are a great many avenues to pursue if you think you have to report something. Taking it to a reporter, or Wikileaks, is almost the worst course of action. People who are going this route are looking for the glory. They may act all altruistic, but they are violating their vows, federal law, and stupidly endangering people around the world. They know that the media is going to laud their courage. Mark Felt was wrong to do what he did. Even Woodward and Bernstein described him as an incurable gossip. He also collaborated with them before the Watergate leaks, so it wasn't like that one event was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Classified data isn't classified to keep America from seeing it. Classified data is restricted to keep our enemies from seeing it, We elect representatives who have oversight on intel to protect our interests. Other elected officials appoint a wide range of people, from analysts to judges to oversee the intelligence system. These are our checks and balances. Not the media, who have no context to interpret the smidgen of data that they may get out of context and who are increasingly incentivized to sensationalism and strife rather than propriety and ethics.

Very well said but you will get no legit response because all those things you said about the responsibilities that go along with classified information require someone with ethics to follow them. Without ethics there is no responsibility, honor or respect for laws. Reality Winner thought her beliefs were more important than the 60,000,000 plus people that voted for Trump and therefore rules and ethics be damned.

 

[UCFhonors]

Very well said but you will get no legit response because all those things you said about the responsibilities that go along with classified information require someone with ethics to follow them. Without ethics there is no responsibility, honor or respect for laws. Reality Winner thought her beliefs were more important than the 60,000,000 plus people that voted for Trump and therefore rules and ethics be damned.

I don't respect unjust and immoral laws, if that what is you're getting at. Stop being such a sheep.

 

[goodknightfl]

Honors we do need a free (honest) press. We do not have one. a press that has gone from 85% positive on Obama to 90% negative on trump is not a press, they are a wing of the democratic party.

 

[UCFhonors]

Wow, you should tone down the condescension when you are obviously ignorant about what it means to hold a security clearance.

When you apply for a clearance, you are committing under oath to protect the information that you are handling. You are committing to abide by all the laws and rules pertaining to classified data. You are swearing to report any unintentional viewing of data, any mishandling, any spillage. You get trained regularly in proper data handling, have to refresh your commitment regularly, and should be in a community where people are keenly aware of how to handle classified data or not. Especially at any of the 3-letter agencies. This woman intentionally accessed data outside of her job without a need to know and then intentionally shared that with an uncleared third party. That is espionage. It doesn't matter if the recipient is a foreign actor or the press. She swore under oath not to commit these actions and then commenced anyways. She is not a hero. She is a criminal.

As for oversight and whistleblower channels, there are a great many avenues to pursue if you think you have to report something. Taking it to a reporter, or Wikileaks, is almost the worst course of action. People who are going this route are looking for the glory. They may act all altruistic, but they are violating their vows, federal law, and stupidly endangering people around the world. They know that the media is going to laud their courage. Mark Felt was wrong to do what he did. Even Woodward and Bernstein described him as an incurable gossip. He also collaborated with them before the Watergate leaks, so it wasn't like that one event was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Classified data isn't classified to keep America from seeing it. Classified data is restricted to keep our enemies from seeing it, We elect representatives who have oversight on intel to protect our interests. Other elected officials appoint a wide range of people, from analysts to judges to oversee the intelligence system. These are our checks and balances. Not the media, who have no context to interpret the smidgen of data that they may get out of context and who are increasingly incentivized to sensationalism and strife rather than propriety and ethics.

Indoctrinated.

Again, I don't know who "she" is.


I'm at a philosophical level, while you're myopic diatribe is on what is necessary to not ruffle feathers.

You point out an interesting point on oversight. So, hypothetically, lets say some gov't agency keeps breaking Federal Law. Under your thinking, Congress or internal affairs dealing with the agency breaking laws is sufficient. I disagree. I'm saying the citizens of America should know about a agency breaking laws so the citizens can vote according. You're talking about a justification of cover ups. I'm talking about the whole philosophical reason why we have Freedom of Press. The electorate, can not be informed, can not make smart voting decisions, can not hold the government accountable, when every government agency covers ups all their mistakes under the cloak and veil of secrecy and random classification.

You probably had heard of the Freedom of Information Act. The fact that a law had to be passed to ensure Freedom of Press shows that Freedom of Press was being oppressed. That happened in 1966. We are more secretive today. If you're not standing up for Freedom than you are an enemy of this country.

 

[UCFhonors]

Honors we do need a free (honest) press. We do not have one. a press that has gone from 85% positive on Obama to 90% negative on trump is not a press, they are a wing of the democratic party.

Really? Help me out with this one, bc I don't understand it at all. How could we determine what is an "honest" press is? Then what would you propose to do with a "dishonest" press? Kill them?

Seriously, I can't even comprehend what you're saying.

 

[UCFhonors]

You misunderstood. I said the Constitution and Amendments would last forever, but congressional laws would have an end date.

Follow me for a second. If Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution. And the Constitution is designed to protect inalienable / natural / God given Rights then all federal laws should be passed to protect those Rights. What am I missing?

Again, I don't think inalienable, natural, and God given Rights have an expiration date.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

Follow me for a second. If Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution. And the Constitution is designed to protect inalienable / natural / God given Rights then all federal laws should be passed to protect those Rights. What am I missing?

Again, I don't think inalienable, natural, and God given Rights have an expiration date.

The bold is idealistic and not what actually occurs. In any case, what I proposed is a philosophical idea with the intent to prevent outdated laws that were passed under specific conditions from being built upon which creates legal creep and encroachment on American citizens.

 

[fabknight]

Follow me for a second. If Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution. And the Constitution is designed to protect inalienable / natural / God given Rights then all federal laws should be passed to protect those Rights. What am I missing?

Again, I don't think inalienable, natural, and God given Rights have an expiration date.

Unless you don't believe in God. They expire the moment that happens.

 

[UCFhonors]

Unless you don't believe in God. They expire the moment that happens.

When what happens?

 

[fabknight]

When what happens?

The moment they don't believe in God.

 

[UCFhonors]

The moment they don't believe in God.

Did Jesus die for the sins of just believers, too?

 

[fabknight]

Did Jesus die for the sins of just believers, too?

Nope, but if you don't believe in him or that he is Lord and Savior, you're going to hell.

 

[UCFhonors]

Nope, but if you don't believe in him or that he is Lord and Savior, you're going to hell.

Well clearly you got my point hence your deflection / red herring.

My point is God given Rights are for errbody- believers and non-believers.

Your lack of a point is Jesus saved everyone but God given Rights are only reserved for believes of God.

 

[sk8knight]

Indoctrinated.

Again, I don't know who "she" is.


I'm at a philosophical level, while you're myopic diatribe is on what is necessary to not ruffle feathers.

You point out an interesting point on oversight. So, hypothetically, lets say some gov't agency keeps breaking Federal Law. Under your thinking, Congress or internal affairs dealing with the agency breaking laws is sufficient. I disagree. I'm saying the citizens of America should know about a agency breaking laws so the citizens can vote according. You're talking about a justification of cover ups. I'm talking about the whole philosophical reason why we have Freedom of Press. The electorate, can not be informed, can not make smart voting decisions, can not hold the government accountable, when every government agency covers ups all their mistakes under the cloak and veil of secrecy and random classification.

You probably had heard of the Freedom of Information Act. The fact that a law had to be passed to ensure Freedom of Press shows that Freedom of Press was being oppressed. That happened in 1966. We are more secretive today. If you're not standing up for Freedom than you are an enemy of this country.

Your "higher level" amounts to little more than childish rantings. You don't trust the government in place today and therefore wish all information be placed into the public realm so that the general public can enact mob rule with very little context into the most important of matters. More dangerously, the press is presenting information skewed by their political and corporate values skillfully targeted at us to evoke specific responses. At least with the government, we have the power of the vote to alter trends that aren't working for us. When the press becomes the driving force of a mob rule governance, we have no actual representation. This is not freedom, this is the path to willful subjugation.

Back to the point, Freedom of the Press allows the press to comment on the government without fear of retribution from the government and is necessary to a free society. Nowhere in there did it hold that all workings of the federal government should be privy to the press nor fully within the public domain.

FOIA was passed after a heavy lobby from the press and went too far in it's scope. It has since been reined in explicitly to protect the type of information that Reality Winner has exposed. But your fallback to FOIA proves my point exactly, that there are appropriate courses of action to account for bad actors and actions in place already. Violating your oath to unilaterally declassify data to the press is not a heroic activity.

Since you tried to hold that the press is the great protector of our freedom and that we are in a government with more secrecy than ever (which is a ridiculous statement), you would think that more secrecy means the the press would be the most active filers of FOIA requests. In fact, the press doesn't even comprise the majority of requests now, that would be seniors and veterans looking for service records and benefits information.

 

[UCFhonors]

The bold is idealistic and not what actually occurs. In any case, what I proposed is a philosophical idea with the intent to prevent outdated laws that were passed under specific conditions from being built upon which creates legal creep and encroachment on American citizens.

I had to read out loud bc that made my mind hurt.

I'll try to rephrase. Governments will eventually be oppressive tyrants. I agree.

We have set legal precedent that covering up misdeeds of the government is lawful. We have And worst we have employed and indoctrinated a large portion of our electorate to defend this tyrant behavior.

 

[fabknight]

Well clearly you got my point hence your deflection / red herring.

My point is God given Rights are for errbody- believers and non-believers.

Your lack of a point is Jesus saved everyone but God given Rights are only reserved for believes of God.

If one does not believe in God, then rights can't be given by Him but only by other men.