@bdiamand @renderwonk Two civil parties at odds with each other isn't remotely in the same realm of legal concern as government vs. press.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@bdiamand@renderwonk So while your hypothetical is interesting, and might be worth discussing separately, it has no relevance here.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk So why more ok for govt to snoop for insider trading (just $$) than secrets affecting even larger issues?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk Because there is no "freedom of insider trading"? I'm totally confused about what you're arguing here.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk Sharing insider info (tipping) is a form of speech, which happens to be illegal.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk Insider trading does not regulate _speech_, it regulates the _profit_ from speech, and speech has to be private.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@bdiamand@renderwonk Like I said, it literally has no relationship to the issue at hand here, which is _public_ disclosure by the press.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk If that's all we're talking about, govt here is not after press at all. It's trying to find out who spilled beans.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk Well, it's both though. "Spilling the beans" is also protected speech, or it _was supposed to be_.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@bdiamand@renderwonk That's what "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" means.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@bdiamand @renderwonk It doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech unless the government says it's secret."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.