Hacker News Reader

Comment by user982 | Hacker News Reader

This was one of a clutch of related cases before the Supreme Court that gave us the pro-censorship cliché about "shouting fire in a theater."[1]

The Espionage Act that they were convicted under is, of course, still on the books, and now primarily used against whistleblowers and leakers.

[1]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

View on HN

>"shouting fire in a theater."

Relevant Christopher Hitchens: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY

I'm always amazed by his impeccable cocktail of eloquence and straight-to-the-pointness, but now I miss a bit of detour, the on the rocks for this particular drink: how would society heal out of a pathological state of ignorance/misinformation/xenophobia/bigotry? Sure, probably control of free speech is not the answer, but now I'm intrigued.

Though, since 1969 the test for free speech has been imminent lawless action:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

> now primarily used against whistleblowers and leakers.

It's primarily used against leakers. Throwing "whistleblowers" in there makes the statement misleading, since none of the leakers the Obama administration prosecuted under that act were whistleblowers.

The controversy was that some of the leakers prosecuted were journalists, not whistleblowers.

Here's a whistleblower who was prosecuted by the Obama administration: Thomas Drake, who revealed massive overspending and incompetence within the NSA. He was charged under the Espionage Act and the prosecution wanted to give him 35 years in prison; he ultimately plead guilty to "exceeding authorized access to a computer."

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/drake-pleads-guilty/

If one believes the government should be transparent, then they would be considered whistleblowers.

One man's leaker is another man's whistleblower. It's not always so black and white.

And of course Obama used it more than all other presidents combined.

Which is why a libertarian had a really odd choice to make last election: go with someone who has hollowed out the constitution in her time in office as much as possible, or go with someone who promises to hollow out different parts of it. Or not vote.

Wouldn't a libertarian have voted for Gary Johnson?

That's essentially the same as not voting. Pragmatically, your three choices are Democrat, Republican, or "whatever the rest of the country decides".

(That's if you live in a swing state; in a solidly red or blue state, "whatever the rest of the country decides" is really your only option.)

It is not the same as not voting. Even if one disagrees with what the rest of the country decides, one should vote. If more people voted their conscience, the parties would be forced to reform.

You're speaking hypothetically, but I'm speaking pragmatically. In the 2020 Presidential election, a Democrat or Republican will be elected, and a third-party vote will have the same effect on that as not voting: none, (arguably, unless it comes at the expense of a Democrat or Republican vote).

You are speaking hyperbolically. I voted in the 2016 election. I did not vote for Clinton or Trump. My vote had a very small effect on those who would try to win my vote. If I had not voted at all, that effect would be less. If more people voted their conscience instead of playing a losing game against the entrenched parties, the parties would listen to the voters.

Obama broke the record for most whistleblowers tried under the Espionage Act, and Trump is on pace to beat that record. So if that issue matters to you, voting Republican or Democrat has the same effect as not voting. Same thing if you are opposed to the wars. Real pragmatic choice.

> And of course Obama used it more than all other presidents combined.

Could you provide a source for that?

A quick Google search would do you well. Take this article for example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe...

Or even this one: https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-his...

Not the op but..

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com