@normative @emptywheel has that withstood a 4th amendment challenge?
-
-
Replying to @jsalsman
@jsalsman@emptywheel Why would you challenge a statute that imposes higher requirements that the Fourth Amendment does?2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @normative
@normative I think you read the statute differently than me. It's like a triple negative.@jsalsman2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Or like 4 nested negatives. General prohibition on seizing journo work product, UNLESS related to a suspected crime by journo1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @normative
@normative UNLESS related to national defense. Also, subpoena clause ALSO permitted it.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel UNLESS the information relates to national security or is child pornography.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @normative
@normative Right. And Rosen's did. That's precisely what is carved out by this law.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel The journalist still has to be suspected of a crime to which the work product is related.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @normative
@normative Yup. See where it describes the crime as "possession of defense info"?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I don't think we're disagreeing... Was just stressing that either way, the journo himself has to be suspected of a crime.2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
@normative And until we fix espionage act, DOJ will continue to say that journos possessing defense info are, if it suits them.
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.