@bdiamand @renderwonk That means _it is not possible_ to be legally obligated not to divulge something, because _there can't be such a law_.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk Do you mean it's unconstitutional to prosecute *anyone* for telling anything they know, or just the press telling?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk You can read it just as I can :) How would _you_ read, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@bdiamand@renderwonk And similarly, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk Going after ppl who tell the press secrets does not abridge press. At least not directly.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk But it's the press that is having their records subpoena'd, and it's impossible to say that isn't a chilling effect.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk Effect may be chilling, but alternative disallows investigative avenues. No threat of AP prosecution == !abridgement.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk That's what the constitution is for. It's the reminder that we err on the side of giving the press freedom.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@bdiamand@renderwonk Ie., rather than erring on the side of letting the FBI do what it wants to do.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@bdiamand@renderwonk I would remind you that the federal government, by the way, _was never supposed to have an investigative arm_.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@bdiamand @renderwonk The fact that the FBI exists at all is a complete fuck-up, in my opinion, but that's a whole other ball of wax.
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.