It’s prior restraint, which is commonly mistaken to be illegal. It’s not there’s just a heavy presumption against it and since it’s national security related the court hearings about the subject are usually closed and sealed but the discussion of the governments right to do it aren’t.
New York Times v US 1971
There’s also voluntary prior restraint where a publisher decides not to publish because the effects of publication don’t outweigh getting shutdown under the burden of huge legal fees.
“Jail time is no fun.” Excellent, keep giving Americans a pass on their cowardice. Couldn’t possibly put yourself at risk or sacrifice anything for your country and the FREEDOM you’ve been shitty about for a century or so.
You don’t seem to understand how this works. You try to publish they shut you down and put you in prison and your story still didn’t see daylight you’re just some dude in prison likely in solitary.
You’re not wrong but being shitty doesn’t change the fact they would end up in jail and accomplish nothing, no one here seems to be giving Americans a pass we’re just aware you have to pick your fights.
No. If they know who you are you aren’t posting. They control the pipeline, if they had no idea what was going to happen that might apply it just doesn’t in this case.
Right. It’s impossible to get information into the public’s hands.
Journalism exists for no more important reason than to be a check on powerful, dangerous people. Third degree burns are also “no fun,” but firefighters exist.
No, it’s impractical to do so without escaping the country or going to prison.
Your example makes no sense, putting out fires is legal, nonpolitical, encouraged and as far as I’m aware there’s no time place manner limitations on it either.
Id argue they’re probably trying to publish but getting hit with national security forced publication holds
…? that in itself would be news.
also what the fuck is that supposed to be, really? afaik there’s no national security concerns about an old man being dead.
They don’t have to explain the hold for quite some time. Unless something leaks we wouldn’t know
you keep referring to this like it’s a thing. what is it?
I can’t find anything about it.
It’s prior restraint, which is commonly mistaken to be illegal. It’s not there’s just a heavy presumption against it and since it’s national security related the court hearings about the subject are usually closed and sealed but the discussion of the governments right to do it aren’t.
New York Times v US 1971
There’s also voluntary prior restraint where a publisher decides not to publish because the effects of publication don’t outweigh getting shutdown under the burden of huge legal fees.
Real journalists wouldn’t care.
Jail time is no fun and has a big price tag unfortunately. Though no one is stopping you from being that change.
Not my country, guy.
“Jail time is no fun.” Excellent, keep giving Americans a pass on their cowardice. Couldn’t possibly put yourself at risk or sacrifice anything for your country and the FREEDOM you’ve been shitty about for a century or so.
You don’t seem to understand how this works. You try to publish they shut you down and put you in prison and your story still didn’t see daylight you’re just some dude in prison likely in solitary.
You’re not wrong but being shitty doesn’t change the fact they would end up in jail and accomplish nothing, no one here seems to be giving Americans a pass we’re just aware you have to pick your fights.
This isn’t the 1800s anymore, you post online and people WILL see it
No. If they know who you are you aren’t posting. They control the pipeline, if they had no idea what was going to happen that might apply it just doesn’t in this case.
That’s why there’s never been any leaks. Totally nobody named Edward Snowden or anything like that, totally impossible to post shit…
You’re lighting the fact snowden is exiled to avoid imprisonment for what’s likely to be life and even that ignores the death threats and attempts.
Right. It’s impossible to get information into the public’s hands.
Journalism exists for no more important reason than to be a check on powerful, dangerous people. Third degree burns are also “no fun,” but firefighters exist.
No, it’s impractical to do so without escaping the country or going to prison.
Your example makes no sense, putting out fires is legal, nonpolitical, encouraged and as far as I’m aware there’s no time place manner limitations on it either.
You are part of the problem. In a big way, even.
Oh but not you? You have the solutions and your vocal about it but aren’t actually a journalist, funny that.
They’re voluntary holds. The media is complicit.
They could be but we don’t know. It seems you have all the solutions and a rigid stance on it, why isn’t there at least I’ve outlet reporting huh?