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.

"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.

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

  1. identicon
    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.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.