←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 5 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 1.102s | source
Show context
jrm4 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:16 UTC] No.32641533[source]▶
I find that it's always interesting to THEN consider, okay -- while there's no centralized board or anything -- what does e.g. American censorship go after?
replies(13): >>32641558 #>>32641741 #>>32641840 #>>32642051 #>>32642100 #>>32642172 #>>32642292 #>>32642369 #>>32642503 #>>32642581 #>>32642807 #>>32646186 #>>32656381 #
1. gwbas1c ◴[29 Aug 22 19:17 UTC] No.32642292[source]▶
In the US, you can get in a lot of trouble for publishing military secrets. (IE, you bet a movie that casually mentions a military secret would get into a lot of hot water right away.)

Otherwise, the rest of censorship comes from social pressure; or someone with hurt feelings trying to twist the courts to enforce their will.

replies(1): >>32645426 #
2. astrange ◴[30 Aug 22 00:49 UTC] No.32645426[source]▶
Publishing military secrets is legal (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_....). Journalists don't have a duty to keep classified information secret, only the people who've agreed to keep it secret do.
replies(1): >>32647794 #
3. trasz ◴[30 Aug 22 07:54 UTC] No.32647794[source]▶
Obviously false, see Assange.
replies(1): >>32648255 #
4. astrange ◴[30 Aug 22 09:14 UTC] No.32648255{3}[source]▶
Assange hasn't been convicted of anything yet. Seeing as he was part of a conspiracy to steal the classified information, probably will be though.

The bit of the Espionage Act that conflicts with my previous post is unconstitutional.

replies(1): >>32649406 #
5. trasz ◴[30 Aug 22 12:19 UTC] No.32649406{4}[source]▶
It doesn’t matter if he hasn’t been formally convicted; he spent last decade de facto imprisoned, proving that US does in fact punish journalists that are a bit too nosy about US military.