This is quite dangerous -- imagine an agent giving someone a document with security markings removed. That person then publishes the document and can now be prosecuted...
This is just a prediction, but notice how Congress will suddenly be able to work together when it comes to passing this bill. I hope the cynic in me is proven wrong.
Perhaps the second person might give some thoughts about the documents, do some research, and actually think before releasing said documents for their 15 minutes of fame.
If Bob buys a beer and hands it to Larry who then gives it to underage Tommy, we still say you can't do that. But if I leak confidential documents to one person who then goes on to publish them, it's not wrong to publish them?
It's still wrong, and should be against the law, no matter how many times removed the action is. Just because people don't like or trust the government does not make it okay to go around publishing documents in the name of free speech.
So we should round up most of the reporters in the US, and everyone that's talked about the leaked wires, and prosecute them? Doesn't matter how many times removed they are, right?
The crime is the breaching of an agreement between a cleared government worker and the government. Someone without an agreement with the government is under no obligation to keep anything secret.
I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. How is it that breaking the law by the first person makes it okay for the next person? Even if there is no law about the second persons actions, it's still wrong. Do you simply not see it as being wrong? The whole idea is to keep the documents private so why would it matter if the 1st or 3rd person published them? It's still wrong, each and every time down the line.
The whole idea is to make the people who should be keeping the documents private legally responsible, with severe consequences, for taking a specific set of precautions to keep the documents private.
I dislike reasoning by analogy, but if you must have one, it's more like a 16 year old buying beer and then giving it to a 23 year old, who consumes it or gives it to other people over 21.
By the time Tommy is passed out under the table in a pool of his own vomit from the 500 beers that 500 other people, who won't be prosecuted because they're on the other side of the world, have given him, putting a mug of beer in front of him so you can take a picture and make a commentary about beer's effect on the youth is a whole lot less morally reprehensible.
I can see it being wrong in circumstances, but I don't think just because the government has deemed something confidential should make it wrong and/or illegal, confidentiality != underage (and I'll assume you mean child rather than, say an 18 year old) alcohol consumption. The classification doesn't matter, it's the content. What wikileaks is doing is far different than publishing a list of people in the CIA, FBI, and Witness Protection Program along with their addresses and family's addresses.
Edit: furthermore, I'd like you to consider the case when our own government's illegal action is exposed. Do you really think it should be illegal to reveal the illegal actions of our government?
To answer your edit, how did you find out about those illegal activities? It's like saying, I have to break the law to save the law. There are probably things that the public should know about and things that the public should not, however, it should never be up to 1 man to decide which is which. Until such time as we correct the situation that we are in, we still have laws and morals to follow, and spreading confidential documents of whatever caliber belonging to the government is still wrong. It's a round argument I know but two wrongs never make a right.
You're still under the assumption that illegal is immoral (or that exposing secrets is in itself immoral). If the government were to disclose the hypothetical lists above, unclassified, would it be right to print them everywhere? (And in fact when the government "accidentally" reveals identities no one is really prosecuted... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair see esp. Libby )
I agree, it should never be up to a government man to decide which government secrets the public can hear about.
If the government wants to assemble a non-governmental board of oversight that's immune from interference from the government, and that will inspect every secret document available, evaluate if the public would benefit from hearing from it, and release it if they think it's in the public's interest (no matter if government agents ends up shamed, imprisoned, or just disagree), I'm all for it.
Governments have proven for the last several thousand years of history that they do not give a damn about laws and morals, and will do whatever feels expedient in a certain situation, irrespective of anyone getting fucked over, killed, silenced, or otherwise harmed in the process.
[Upvoted because I don't feel your downvote is fair.]
I disagree with your analogy, because the First Amendment doesn't cover buying beer for a minor. And the First Amendment isn't just some law--it's a cornerstone for our relationship with our government.
Is it "ok" to publish the secret documents? Of course not.
But allowing the government to punish third parties for publishing the documents is even less "OK"! The US government is heavily restricted because history has shown that a government will abuse the hell out of its citizens.
And sometimes this means the US government's hands are tied, and people that do "bad" things are set free. But the Founding Fathers agreed that the greater good was served in this manner... and I concur.
It sucks that the secrets got out. We need to take steps so that it won't happen again--such as not allowing people to walk out of secure areas with freakin' CD-RWs!
And finally, I have a practical argument against publisher restriction. Once the secret has been stolen, it WILL get out, and it will get out BIG. How many mirrors of WikiLeaks are there? 1000? How many of those aren't under our jurisdiction? How many are in countries unfriendly to the US? Are we going to go to war over someone's web server? No. So even if you grant the government the power to punish the publishers, you still won't keep the secrets secret.
If you want all this abusable power given to the government, I'm going to want some appreciable effect in return... and there is none in this case, so... no thanks.
I'll agree with you that it's not "ok". But that's as far as I go. It's also not "ok" for a guy who committed an unwitnessed murder to not say so on the witness stand. But I'll back his right to remain silent every time because I know in the long run the greater good is served.
Your two examples differ in a way you fail to recognize.
The illegality of the beer example comes in the act of giving to the underage person.
The illegality of the documents example is the first exposure of the documents to someone without clearance.
Both examples involve two steps; the beer example is illegal in the final step, the document example is illegal in the first step.
There appears to a habit here at HN to downvote a comment simply because one disagrees with said comment.
You have a valid point. I disagree, however.
One has to weight the situation. A government operating in the darkness of secrecy will not lead to anything good.
It started with simply stopping lawsuits against "renditions" by citing national security concerns (i.e. the government can basically do what it wants and then just draw the "national security" card) and goes on with knee-jerk, infantile reaction against WikiLeaks.
Under out current system, the government has decided the level of disclosure that it wishes to maintain. If you do not agree, you are welcome to write your representatives a letter (however futile) and complain. You may disagree with the level that the government has chosen and I applaud your concern. But, you will have to live with your choices if you choose to break the rules of the current situation. I can only hope that your actions will prove your innocence and the rules can be amended due to public outcry and representative support and a pardon granted. Until such time, you cannot have freedom to be the sole decider on which level of secrecy the government maintains. You cannot act without repercussion in anything that you do and what this bill aims to do is to fix a hole and remind people that secret/confidential documents are that way for a reason and it does not matter how many times removed you are from the initial action, helping the perpetrator is just as bad.
