Rep. Peter King Says Reporters Should Be Prosecuted For Reporting On Government Leaks
from the that-whole-first-amendment-thing-sure-is-a-bitch dept
Rep. Peter King, apparently, is not a fan of the US Constitution that he's been sworn to uphold. In the past, he wanted Wikileaks put on the official terrorist list, argued that the Boston bombing meant we needed less freedom and more surveillance, and now has announced that reporters should be prosecuted if they report on leaked classified material. Apparently the whole concept of the First Amendment and whistleblowing is foreign to Rep. King, despite the fact that they're some of the fundamental parts of what America is based on."If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude," King said.Of course, as the article correctly points out, publishing classified information is not a crime, and trying to criminalize it would almost certainly go against the First Amendment. Of course, as we've noted in the past, Peter King is against terrorism, unless the terrorists are Irish. Then he's all for it. Apparently, overreactions, complete misunderstanding of the law and hypocrisy all go hand in hand.
"I think on something of this magnitude, there is an obligation both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something that would so severely compromise national security."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: classified info, ed snowden, first amendment, free speech, freedom of the press, glenn greenwald, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, peter king, terrorism
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This just in...
Politicians are idiots...
Film at 11!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This just in...
You sound like a politician, being out of touch like this.
/joke
I do agree, this King is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This just in...
I do as well, but would also add in the majority of voters in the congressional district that keeps re-electing him. I'd love to know if some or all of the shut ins/trolls on the site live on that part of Long Island.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This just in...
Now, at least don't say that isn't the obvious conclusion to be drawn from your post. But just go ahead and try to provide some other reason you'd want to know where people are, because I WANT YOU to keep making your true positions known. ... Such nasty little hypocrites on this site. You should admire the stamina of those whom you disparage as "shut ins/trolls" -- I'm probably included -- because you're just plain ICKY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
Since you missed apauld's meaning, I'll spell it out in less cryptic terms: he was calling the trolls here idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/google_witch_hunters.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
It's as if she wants to be "disappeared."
Not gonna happen. Nobody's interested and fewer of us care, even in the "spook" community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
I remember out_of_the_blue once advocating something about "if you're talking about it and you're against it you must be guilty". Maybe he IS from Long Island!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This just in...
If that dude is the best the state has imagine how the others are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This just in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yup...
Some think of people like Edward Snowden as traitors, but as far as I'm concerned those who ought to be treated like traitors are the ones who conspire to or otherwise knowingly violate the people's constitutional rights. People like Peter King are more appropriately called traitors than Snowden and the various reporters involved in recent leaks.
The Obama Administration is full of traitors, and so is Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yup...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yup...
This man is an absolute religiously motivated SNAKE....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup...
That just put the craziest thought in my head...
So one day, in the future, Peter King decides to run for President. While campaigning he ends up spending an afternoon at one of those snake handling pentecostal churches in Appalachia. The congregation is very displeased, as Rep. King keeps biting their snakes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yup...
Unfortunately it goes back much farther than the Cold War.
The Japanese internment camps during WW2 is a particular glaring example.
Quite a bit of nasty stuff during the Civil War.
The ink was hardly dry on the Constitution and Bill of Rights when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by Congress in 1798, and were used to jail and fine the authors and journalists of the time for disagreeing and embarrassing with those in political power (sound familiar yet?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy ...
At the very least he needs to be removed from office ... wth is his constituency thinking allowing him to stay in DC when he's clearly not a supporter of American ideals ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This guy ...
Oh, sure, take away the opportunity for a good pot joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This guy ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah? Well *I* think on something of this magnitude, there is an obligation both moral but also legal, I believe, against the government COVERING UP something that would so severely compromise national liberties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Security
Contrast with security expert Bruce Schneier's recent comments:
I think I'll take the security expert's opinion over that of some jackass congressman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though it iss entirely possible he really wanted his work to give a chance for humanity to see and correct itself rather than become the operations manual for our modern tyrants that it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2429
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
King
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
We've already pretty much suspended the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments on the rights of the accused and criminals. Now King wants to start taking away our 1st amendment rights to.
And don't forget, King and others also insist that the constitution only protects US citizens, and we can do whatever human rights abuses we want in the name of fighting terrorism to foreigners (such as what cruel things are done at Guantanamo, and indefinite detention for even people cleared for release over 3 years ago).
So what amendment is next, the 2nd amendment to take away all the guns outside of government hands?
Or maybe the 3rd amendment so that the army can seize your nice house in the name of national security in order to lodge some troops, and leave you to sleep on the sidewalk, just like the British troops used to do. After all, we do need to cut back on spending somewhere, just not on national security!
Or maybe the 9th and 10th amendments, they're too vague, and also talk about limiting federal government power and giving it to the state, as well as giving vague rights to US citizens that could possibly help terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
It doesn't matter what you think the definition is, it matters who wrote its definition was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rep. King should remember his Oath of Office
Did you forget this, Rep. King? How pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect and defend...
Excepting the Lawful Orders part and adding Uphold to Protect and Defend, politicians all take that same oath. And it seems they've been steadily getting worse as the Republic has aged. Lately, a lot worse, and I'm talking generations, not just Obama, Bush (I or II), Clinton, whomever all the way back to Lincoln actually if not earlier. Now is not the time for a history lesson.
Well, there should be one lesson. The First Amendment stands, period. On that the Supreme Court has always been on point. If Mr. Hill is saying these things, he's in violation of his oath, grandstanding or no. Should he and others follow through, they should be held accountable and Mr. King needs to be reminded that the penalty for Treason is the only penalty to be found in the entire Constitution. Good luck on Amending that!
Don't even get me started on Foreign and Domestic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
King is an embarrassment to the entire foundation of the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect and defend...
Excepting the Lawful Orders part and adding Uphold to Protect and Defend, politicians all take that same oath. And it seems they've been steadily getting worse as the Republic has aged. Lately, a lot worse, and I'm talking generations, not just Obama, Bush (I or II), Clinton, whomever all the way back to Lincoln actually if not earlier. Now is not the time for a history lesson.
Well, there should be one lesson. The First Amendment stands, period. On that the Supreme Court has always been on point. If Mr. Hill is saying these things, he's in violation of his oath, grandstanding or no. Should he and others follow through, they should be held accountable and Mr. King needs to be reminded that the penalty for Treason is the only penalty to be found in the entire Constitution. Good luck on Amending that!
Don't even get me started on Foreign and Domestic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moiUAO3CKbM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1984
Maybe this time the American public will take notice and react. I'm not optimistic about it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quite Simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
Oath of office? You have to be kidding me. He read that on the back of his cereal box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
King Baffoon
ass clown (ás kloun) n.: one, who, through the fault of his parents conception, is a skid mark in society's collective underwear.
This embarrassment to Long Island needs to go away. So glad I live at the other end, far away from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"derp fuk yo rites newz peeple becuz im da king babie"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a British newspaper, the Guardian is ONLY subject to BRITISH laws, as is the reporter. The Guardian is a newspaper that is headquarted in London, England. That means that the Guardian, and its reporters, are NOT SUBJECT to American laws. So Peter King is barking up the wrong tree on this one. American laws do not apply to a newspaper in Britain, nor to its reporters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's a US citizen living in Brazil, actually. So, not sure your comment applies. He does work for a UK paper, though, so you got that point right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]