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

Wed, Jun 12th 2013 10:19am — Mike Masnick

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.

"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."

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.

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

55 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

It really is amazing the lengths to which politicians will go just because they are scared of informed masses.

—Zakida Paul

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jeff (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 9:41am

This just in...
Water is wet...

Politicians are idiots...

Film at 11!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Akari Mizunashi (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 9:45am

Re: This just in...
Film? 11?

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:17am

Yup...
Sounds like treason to me....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:24am

It really is amazing the lengths to which politicians will go just because they are scared of informed masses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MondoGordo (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:24am

This guy ...
Should be publicly stoned (with real stones) !!
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:26am

Re: Yup...
I was thinking along the same lines.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:28am

"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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:31am

National Security
Says Peter King:
"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."

Contrast with security expert Bruce Schneier's recent comments:
"Reading the documents leaked so far, I don't see anything that needs to be kept secret. The argument that exposing these documents helps the terrorists doesn't even pass the laugh test; there's nothing here that changes anything any potential terrorist would do or not do."

I think I'll take the security expert's opinion over that of some jackass congressman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
apauld (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:32am

Re: Re: This just in...
"I do agree, this King is an idiot."

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 thread ]
howtogetridoffleasez (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:34am

Orwell is spinning in his grave.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:39am

FTFY
[Congress] should be prosecuted for [not] reporting on Government [crimes]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:40am

King
Mr King, your name does not make you an absolute monarch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:49am

Re: National Security
That's what I came to post. I like how it flips between "how dare you!" and "eh, no big deal" as it suits them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:52am

Re:
Orwell combusted into flames from spinning so much decades ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:52am

Re:
Woudn't Orwell be nodding then shaking his head in the grave in the fashion of "told you so, you stupid monkeys".

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:54am

So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
So, what amendments will Peter King demand we ignore in the name of national security?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:56am

Rep. King should remember his Oath of Office
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. "

Did you forget this, Rep. King? How pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Wong-Faull (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:02am

It is a very odd sort of patriot who would destroy the First (and Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth) Amendment to protect America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:06am

i was just about to call him the same as that particular part of the female anatomy found at the junction of both legs, but then i remembered that that part is extremely useful, unlike, by the sounds of things, this person is
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: Re: This just in...
@ "apauld": "I'd love to know if some or all of the shut ins/trolls on the site live on that part of Long Island." -- WHY? SO YOU CAN USE THAT TO HARASS ENEMIES? That's EXACTLY same attitude as Peter King has. EXACTLY. It's not enough for you to state your opinions here and let others do the same, letting readers decide, NO, you want to SHUT UP DISSENT, and gaining their location and identity is a step toward that.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
Wow, that's a stunning level of paranoia right there.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:14am

Re: This guy ...
(with real stones)

Oh, sure, take away the opportunity for a good pot joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:15am

Re: Re: Re: This just in...
Don't be so hard on the folks down there, maybe they just don't have a choice.

If that dude is the best the state has imagine how the others are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:15am

Christ, what an asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JackOfShadows (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:19am

Protect and defend...
Nine days after my seventeenth birthday I swore an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic, and to Obey All Lawful Orders of those Officers Appointed Above Me." Yep, the caps were in there too, I might even have missed a couple. I knew what every word meant and the meaning of the whole; my family has always been military, both lines.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:19am

The Forbes article on this is well-written and suitably scathing.

King is an embarrassment to the entire foundation of the country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JackOfShadows (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:20am

Protect and defend...
Nine days after my seventeenth birthday I swore an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic, and to Obey All Lawful Orders of those Officers Appointed Above Me." Yep, the caps were in there too, I might even have missed a couple. I knew what every word meant and the meaning of the whole; my family has always been military, both lines.

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 thread ]
TaCktiX, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:20am

Re: Re: Yup...
The really disheartening part is that this is not new. Treason (or more properly, violating portions of the Constitution "for security reasons") has been generally accepted in the government since the Cold War kicked off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:33am

Milkin' it and Gettin' those clicks!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moiUAO3CKbM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MondoGordo (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: This guy ...
sorry ... my bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:37am

It should be obvious why Snowden chose he Guardian to leak to. Since the Guadian is a British newspaper, it cannot be prosecuted, as a newspaper in Britain is not subject to US laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolfy, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:41am

There are more "Traitors to America" in elected positions throughout the country.. far more than are "on the lam".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
steell (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:44am

1984
Interesting that Amazon just reported that sales of George Orwell's 1984 have increased 9400%

Maybe this time the American public will take notice and react. I'm not optimistic about it though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:46am

"Gonzales is apparently referring to provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917. Under 18 U.S.C. � 793(e), it is a crime to "willfully communicate" any "information relating to the national defense which . . . the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . to any person not entitled to receive it." Moreover, when two or more persons cooperate to violate section 793(e), that constitutes conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. � 793(g). Additionally, under 18 U.S.C. � 798(a)(3), "whoever knowingly and willfully . . . publishes . . . any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government" is subject to up to ten years of imprisonment."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:46am

Re:
Orwell is spinning in his grave.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2429
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 12 Jun 2013 @ 12:23pm

Quite Simple
Rep. Peter King is a traitor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FM HIlton, 12 Jun 2013 @ 12:29pm

Re:So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
If he had his way, the entire Constitution would be thrown out, along with the Bill of Rights (yes, I do know they're together, but separate)-and let's not forget the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta...any other important documents which propose human freedom from tyranny I missed?

Oath of office? You have to be kidding me. He read that on the back of his cereal box.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Yup...
I'm surprised nobody has yet brought up Mr. King's lecturing everyone on the need for national security intrusions on our privacy, and questioning exactly how that jives with his previous direct support for at least one terrorist organization and indirect support for a second.

This man is an absolute religiously motivated SNAKE....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
wow this really is you isn't it?
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/google_witch_hunters.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
apauld (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
True, I certainly have no love for the rep my district keeps voting for; but as John F posted above I was actually just trying to call the trolls idiots, just to see if any of them would take the bait. I know maybe I'm terrible for doing that; but OOTB's response was great.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
apauld (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup...
"This man is an absolute religiously motivated SNAKE...."

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup...
Impossible. First, King is too old to run for President. Second, you can't get elected after directly supporting the IRA and indirectly supporting FARQ. Even this country isn't THAT fucking stupid....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:06pm

Re: So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
I like to argue that income taxes are a violation of our 3rd Amendment rights. The 3rd Amendment guarantees the government will not force us to house soldiers in peace time. Taxes we are forced to pay go toward housing soldiers during peace times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re: So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
Housing as "in YOUR house". You just have a different definition for the word "housing" in that context than the people who wrote it.

It doesn't matter what you think the definition is, it matters who wrote its definition was.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Yup...
Treason (or more properly, violating portions of the Constitution "for security reasons") has been generally accepted in the government since the Cold War kicked off.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:45pm

What a douche bag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CivilLibertarian (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:59pm

King Baffoon
Peter King is the definition of an ass clown.
ass clown (�s 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 2:02pm

Sigh, This asshole needs to fuck off already...

"derp fuk yo rites newz peeple becuz im da king babie"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 6:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
Wow, looks like a major nerve was hit. Wonder why?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 7:54pm

Peter King is missing just one detail. The reporter is living in England, as a lawful permanent resident, working for a British newspaper, and paying British taxes.

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 10:43pm

Re:
Peter King is missing just one detail. The reporter is living in England, as a lawful permanent resident, working for a British newspaper, and paying British taxes.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup...
I wouldn't take that bet...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in...
I see you've discovered the rabid conspiracy theorist Cathy, who lives on Google and complains about it all day long. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

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 thread ]
shit for brains, 20 Dec 2013 @ 4:50am

Re: This just in...
peter king is a low grade imbecil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Skeptical Cynic, 28 May 2020 @ 7:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup...
[ link to this | view in thread ]