Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should NY Times Be Prosecuted for Classified Leaks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mao II who wrote (96)	7/3/2006 11:30:26 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 178

Why not simply amend the Constitution, eliminating the First Amendment? That is nonsense.....no one advocates abrogating the First Amendment. However, the country is at war.....and the limits of those rights may change with the circumstances of the time.... None of our rights are absolute.....reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of the exercise of free speech rights have been upheld on numerous occasions by the USSC. The debate should be about the limits of the press to publish classified information in time of war.... J.

To: Mao II who wrote (96)	7/3/2006 11:34:17 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 178

Do you have anything rational to add to the debate? Answer me this, do you believe the First Amendment to the Constitution trumps all other concerns and gives the press the right to publish whatever if chooses? For the sake of discussion, I'll quote the First Amendment for you: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Now, again, do you believe the language that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press" gives the media carte blanche to print whatever they see fit? Do you disagree with JLA's comment that time, place and manner restrictions (which have been upheld in various free speech contexts) apply?