EDIT: Double apologies, I meant to take this over to the Freedom of Speech thread, not the Freedom of the Press thread. In my defense they were like, right next to each other.
So, the FBI is currently investigating Project Veritas and James O'Keefe in part over the theft of the diary of the President's granddaughter, which just so happened to wind up in O'Keefe's possession. Unsurprisingly, O'Keefe is crying freedom of the press over this, and also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are falling for it. As Politico puts the question:
At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?
To which the answer should be "no". Furthermore, treating O'Keefe as a journalist would harm actual journalists by turning their profession into a shield for political agents.
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
you can legally acquire stolen goods?
Basically, the courts have said that journalists can't be held liable for using stolen material in their reporting as long as they acquired it in good faith.
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
you can legally acquire stolen goods?
Basically, the courts have said that journalists can't be held liable for using stolen material in their reporting as long as they acquired it in good faith.
From my understanding, the way to think about it is that as a journalist you can't steal documents and then report on them. But if someone else steals them independent of you and then gives you those stolen documents, you can report on them.
So, the FBI is currently investigating Project Veritas and James O'Keefe in part over the theft of the diary of the President's granddaughter, which just so happened to wind up in O'Keefe's possession. Unsurprisingly, O'Keefe is crying freedom of the press over this, and also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are falling for it. As Politico puts the question:
At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?
To which the answer should be "no". Furthermore, treating O'Keefe as a journalist would harm actual journalists by turning their profession into a shield for political agents.
Politico is falling for nothing. It is a right wing oriented DC tabloid that does this shit intentionally.
They are just a tiny bit better at disguising it than most conservative publications.
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
you can legally acquire stolen goods?
Journalists are an exception and the rule is basically “so long as the journalist had no hand in acquiring the material, including providing any help facilitating the crime”
So if someone breaks into your house and steals your dairy and then thinks “this is newsworthy i should give it to the press” then that is publishable without penalty
But if I think “I bet your diary is publishable” and tell people where it is then I have committed a crime.
It’s actually a pretty reasonable standard, without which it would be impossible to do most reporting. Because most documents are obtained illegally. Even the act of calling a reporter and telling them sensitive information that you legally had access to is a crime itself. If the reporter was prevented from reporting information obtained criminally then there would be no information but that which PR firms produce
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
you can legally acquire stolen goods?
Basically, the courts have said that journalists can't be held liable for using stolen material in their reporting as long as they acquired it in good faith.
Wasn't this also the case where the courts allowed Congress to go with contempt of Congress charges because the journalist wouldn't disclose their source?
So, the FBI is currently investigating Project Veritas and James O'Keefe in part over the theft of the diary of the President's granddaughter, which just so happened to wind up in O'Keefe's possession. Unsurprisingly, O'Keefe is crying freedom of the press over this, and also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are falling for it. As Politico puts the question:
At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?
To which the answer should be "no". Furthermore, treating O'Keefe as a journalist would harm actual journalists by turning their profession into a shield for political agents.
Politico is falling for nothing. It is a right wing oriented DC tabloid that does this shit intentionally.
They are just a tiny bit better at disguising it than most conservative publications.
I was less talking about Politico, and more the various professors and free speech advocates they quote, who seem to be doing a good demonstration of being so open minded their brains fell out.
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
you can legally acquire stolen goods?
Journalists are an exception and the rule is basically “so long as the journalist had no hand in acquiring the material, including providing any help facilitating the crime”
So if someone breaks into your house and steals your dairy and then thinks “this is newsworthy i should give it to the press” then that is publishable without penalty
But if I think “I bet your diary is publishable” and tell people where it is then I have committed a crime.
It’s actually a pretty reasonable standard, without which it would be impossible to do most reporting. Because most documents are obtained illegally. Even the act of calling a reporter and telling them sensitive information that you legally had access to is a crime itself. If the reporter was prevented from reporting information obtained criminally then there would be no information but that which PR firms produce
So if an agent provcatur (lets call him Kames O'Jeefe) were to deliberately commit crimes to get illegal information, and then were to launder it through an second hand reporter (lets call them Dox News), their hands would be completely clean?
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
you can legally acquire stolen goods?
Journalists are an exception and the rule is basically “so long as the journalist had no hand in acquiring the material, including providing any help facilitating the crime”
So if someone breaks into your house and steals your dairy and then thinks “this is newsworthy i should give it to the press” then that is publishable without penalty
But if I think “I bet your diary is publishable” and tell people where it is then I have committed a crime.
It’s actually a pretty reasonable standard, without which it would be impossible to do most reporting. Because most documents are obtained illegally. Even the act of calling a reporter and telling them sensitive information that you legally had access to is a crime itself. If the reporter was prevented from reporting information obtained criminally then there would be no information but that which PR firms produce
So if an agent provcatur (lets call him Kames O'Jeefe) were to deliberately commit crimes to get illegal information, and then were to launder it through an second hand reporter (lets call them Dox News), their hands would be completely clean?
Yes, that’s what happened with Hunter Biden’s laptop.
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
you can legally acquire stolen goods?
Journalists are an exception and the rule is basically “so long as the journalist had no hand in acquiring the material, including providing any help facilitating the crime”
So if someone breaks into your house and steals your dairy and then thinks “this is newsworthy i should give it to the press” then that is publishable without penalty
But if I think “I bet your diary is publishable” and tell people where it is then I have committed a crime.
It’s actually a pretty reasonable standard, without which it would be impossible to do most reporting. Because most documents are obtained illegally. Even the act of calling a reporter and telling them sensitive information that you legally had access to is a crime itself. If the reporter was prevented from reporting information obtained criminally then there would be no information but that which PR firms produce
So if an agent provcatur (lets call him Kames O'Jeefe) were to deliberately commit crimes to get illegal information, and then were to launder it through an second hand reporter (lets call them Dox News), their hands would be completely clean?
My understanding is (and usual "I am not a specialist" caveats):
If Kames came to them and said "Here is some illegal information", then my understanding is their hands would be clean, even knowing that crimes were committed to obtain said information. Kames would still be liable for the crimes committed to obtain the information.
If Kames came to them and said "Here is some information and here is how I committed crimes to obtain it", then they can be potentially compelled to testify as a witness (divulge sources) of the crimes that were committed (within the limited admissible hearsay criteria, as they did not witness the actual crimes).
If Kames came to them and said "I am going to commit crimes and give you the information" and then commits crimes and gives them the information, then they would potentially be liable as an accessory to the crime.
"DOJ opposes James O'Keefe's request that a court appoint a special master to review materials the FBI seized from him. It says there's a big First Am. difference "between stealing documents and disclosing documents that someone else has stolen previously.""
- Brad Heath is a crime reporter for Reuters.
A key point in the second tweet.
Most of the detail is redacted, but DOJ is pretty clearly alleging that it has evidence Project Veritas had a hand in the theft of Ashley Biden's diary.
He's been skating so long on being a bad faith actor, him not getting consequences so far, is a failure of justice, at least morally and ethically. Hopefully he sees consequences legally, though I'm not in the right headspace to accept that'll happen.
I'd hope that this lawsuit would wake up the usual suspects and get them to ponder Sartre's comment on anti-semites, but given responses like Mike Masnick's:
Breaking: Judge in Project Veritas v New York Times extends ban preventing the Times from publishing Project Veritas material, per today's court hearing. Story to follow.
Yeah, that is absolutely fucked. And yet journalists will protect Project Veritas because...why? They aren't journalists. Hell, they don't believe in journalism, as this lawsuit illustrates.
The Times should go ahead and leak everything anyway.
Fuck that judge.
The Times would never do such an illegal thing that would be harmful to the country and their bottom line.
Sure was a shame about that unsecured server though.
Sadly, I think your first sentence is more likely than your second.
That media still continue to use Marquis of Queensbury rules, while the right use a machete, and the media not even calling them out on it, is one of the reasons we're in this shit.
It's such a weird ruling because the memos predate the libel case, but now that the Times quoted from them in November in regards to the Federal investigation, Project Veritas is making a stink. I can't see how the judge can order the horse back into the barn in an unrelated libel case, especially when Project Veritas looks to be basically fishing for preferential rulings to help with the current investigation over the stolen diary. I could see making a stay on the documents until the case wraps up though.
It is very long standing precedent that prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional. The bar to stop a newspaper from printing something is incredibly high. Just having them relevant to some ongoing court case is not enough.
The Times should go ahead and leak everything anyway.
Fuck that judge.
The Times would never do such an illegal thing that would be harmful to the country and their bottom line.
Sure was a shame about that unsecured server though.
Sadly, I think your first sentence is more likely than your second.
That media still continue to use Marquis of Queensbury rules, while the right use a machete, and the media not even calling them out on it, is one of the reasons we're in this shit.
Project Veritas is also "the media" though, so why don't rules apply to them?
The Times should go ahead and leak everything anyway.
Fuck that judge.
The Times would never do such an illegal thing that would be harmful to the country and their bottom line.
Sure was a shame about that unsecured server though.
Sadly, I think your first sentence is more likely than your second.
That media still continue to use Marquis of Queensbury rules, while the right use a machete, and the media not even calling them out on it, is one of the reasons we're in this shit.
Project Veritas is also "the media" though, so why don't rules apply to them?
Two of Chicago’s best-known media brands are tying the knot as WBEZ’s board of directors voted unanimously Tuesday to acquire the Chicago Sun-Times.
The deal is expected to close Jan. 31, Chicago Public Media and the Chicago Sun-Times said in a joint statement.
The acquisition would create a new journalistic powerhouse, pairing the city’s award-winning, top-rated morning news station with the gritty tabloid made famous by its corruption-busting investigations, Roger Ebert’s movie reviews and Irv Kupcinet’s gossip column, and crisp sportswriting.
“This is an important step to grow and strengthen local journalism in Chicago,” said Matt Moog, CEO of Chicago Public Media in a statement.
“A vibrant local news ecosystem is fundamental to a healthy democracy, informed citizens, and engaged communities. Together WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times aim to tell the stories that matter, serve more Chicagoans with our unbiased, fact-based journalism, and connect Chicagoans more deeply to each other and to their communities,” Moog said.
The closely-watched deal is being held up as a possible template for other impoverished news organizations whose newsrooms have been gutted by declining advertising revenues, audiences migrating to social media for their news and disinterested media owners unwilling to invest.
SDNY announces: "Belarusian Government Officials Charged With Aircraft Piracy For Diverting Ryanair Flight 4978 To Arrest Dissident Journalist In May 2021"
The author is a reporter focusing on legal matters.
We also have a CRIME PROTIP here:if you are going to divert a plane to kidnap a journalist, make sure that an American national isn't onboard.
I'm assuming that this can get them put on Interpol's Red List, and will severely limit their ability to leave the country forever. Kind of a big deal in Europe where popping over to neighboring countries is often like taking a trip to the next county over here in the States, depending on where exactly you live.
So many things flow through the US that having a case against you here can make it very hard to do things like access overseas markets, or, you know, leave your nation without being arrested.
Posts
EDIT: Double apologies, I meant to take this over to the Freedom of Speech thread, not the Freedom of the Press thread. In my defense they were like, right next to each other.
To which the answer should be "no". Furthermore, treating O'Keefe as a journalist would harm actual journalists by turning their profession into a shield for political agents.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It's complicated. The courts have ruled that while journalists cannot directly steal material (again, the only reason Daniel Ellsberg is a free man is because the Nixon DoJ fatally fucked up the case - the government had him dead to rights on the theft of the Pentagon Papers), they can use stolen material if they acquired it legally themselves.
you can legally acquire stolen goods?
Basically, the courts have said that journalists can't be held liable for using stolen material in their reporting as long as they acquired it in good faith.
From my understanding, the way to think about it is that as a journalist you can't steal documents and then report on them. But if someone else steals them independent of you and then gives you those stolen documents, you can report on them.
Politico is falling for nothing. It is a right wing oriented DC tabloid that does this shit intentionally.
They are just a tiny bit better at disguising it than most conservative publications.
Journalists are an exception and the rule is basically “so long as the journalist had no hand in acquiring the material, including providing any help facilitating the crime”
So if someone breaks into your house and steals your dairy and then thinks “this is newsworthy i should give it to the press” then that is publishable without penalty
But if I think “I bet your diary is publishable” and tell people where it is then I have committed a crime.
It’s actually a pretty reasonable standard, without which it would be impossible to do most reporting. Because most documents are obtained illegally. Even the act of calling a reporter and telling them sensitive information that you legally had access to is a crime itself. If the reporter was prevented from reporting information obtained criminally then there would be no information but that which PR firms produce
Wasn't this also the case where the courts allowed Congress to go with contempt of Congress charges because the journalist wouldn't disclose their source?
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I was less talking about Politico, and more the various professors and free speech advocates they quote, who seem to be doing a good demonstration of being so open minded their brains fell out.
So if an agent provcatur (lets call him Kames O'Jeefe) were to deliberately commit crimes to get illegal information, and then were to launder it through an second hand reporter (lets call them Dox News), their hands would be completely clean?
Yes, that’s what happened with Hunter Biden’s laptop.
MWO: Adamski
If Kames came to them and said "Here is some illegal information", then my understanding is their hands would be clean, even knowing that crimes were committed to obtain said information. Kames would still be liable for the crimes committed to obtain the information.
If Kames came to them and said "Here is some information and here is how I committed crimes to obtain it", then they can be potentially compelled to testify as a witness (divulge sources) of the crimes that were committed (within the limited admissible hearsay criteria, as they did not witness the actual crimes).
If Kames came to them and said "I am going to commit crimes and give you the information" and then commits crimes and gives them the information, then they would potentially be liable as an accessory to the crime.
"DOJ opposes James O'Keefe's request that a court appoint a special master to review materials the FBI seized from him. It says there's a big First Am. difference "between stealing documents and disclosing documents that someone else has stolen previously.""
- Brad Heath is a crime reporter for Reuters.
A key point in the second tweet.
He's been skating so long on being a bad faith actor, him not getting consequences so far, is a failure of justice, at least morally and ethically. Hopefully he sees consequences legally, though I'm not in the right headspace to accept that'll happen.
That is a much much bigger FA problem.
Surely that got overturned the instant the appeal was filed.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
just yesterday, so we'll see
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'd hope that this lawsuit would wake up the usual suspects and get them to ponder Sartre's comment on anti-semites, but given responses like Mike Masnick's:
...I'm not exactly holding my breath here.
Nope!
We had follow-up while the holiday hangout was going on. Sadly, it's not a good follow-up:
Yeah, that is absolutely fucked. And yet journalists will protect Project Veritas because...why? They aren't journalists. Hell, they don't believe in journalism, as this lawsuit illustrates.
Fuck that judge.
The Times would never do such an illegal thing that would be harmful to the country and their bottom line.
Sure was a shame about that unsecured server though.
Sadly, I think your first sentence is more likely than your second.
That media still continue to use Marquis of Queensbury rules, while the right use a machete, and the media not even calling them out on it, is one of the reasons we're in this shit.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Project Veritas is also "the media" though, so why don't rules apply to them?
As always, it's okay if you're a Republican.
Because the SDNY remembers:
The author is a reporter focusing on legal matters.
We also have a CRIME PROTIP here:if you are going to divert a plane to kidnap a journalist, make sure that an American national isn't onboard.
What is the practical effect?
I'm assuming that this can get them put on Interpol's Red List, and will severely limit their ability to leave the country forever. Kind of a big deal in Europe where popping over to neighboring countries is often like taking a trip to the next county over here in the States, depending on where exactly you live.
So many things flow through the US that having a case against you here can make it very hard to do things like access overseas markets, or, you know, leave your nation without being arrested.