There was an interesting segment on CNN last week where CNN anchor Chris Cuomo reminds viewers for it is illegal for them to “possess” Wikileaks material and that, as a result, they will have to rely on the media to tell them what is in these documents. The legal assertion is dubious, but the political implications are even more concerning. Polls show that many voters view the media as biased and this is a particularly strong view among supporters of Donald Trump who view CNN and other networks openly supporting Clinton or attacking Trump. More importantly, the mainstream media has reported relatively little from the Wikileaks material and has not delved deeply into their implications, including embarrassing emails showing reporters coordinating with the Clinton campaign and supposedly “neutral” media figures like Donna Brazile, formerly with CNN, allegedly slipping advance question material to Hillary Clinton. The credibility of the media is at an all-time low and most voters hardly feel comfortable with this material being reported second-hand or interpreted by the mainstream media. So is it really illegal for voters to have this material?
Cuomo was about to discuss embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s inbox but he stopped to remind viewers “remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents,” Cuomo says. “It’s different for the media, so everything you’re learning about this, you’re learning from us.”
First, the criticism of Cuomo as trying to keep people from reading this material (which is damaging to Clinton) seems a bit far-fetched. It is more likely that he felt obligated to disclose the uncertain legal status of such documents. However, he overstated the case in my view.
It is true that possession of stolen items is a crime and documents can be treated as stolen items. However, this material has already been released and it is doubtful that downloading widely available material (particularly in a matter of great public interest) would be seen as prosecutable possession. Whoever had original possession has released them widely to the public like throwing copies out a window by the thousands. Whatever crime is alleged, it will be directed at the original hacker and not the public. Just downloading and reading public available material is unlikely to be viewed as a crime unless you use material to steal someone’s identity or commit a collateral crime. Otherwise, possession of the Pentagon Papers would lead to the arrest of tens of thousands of citizens.
More importantly, most people do not download these documents but read them on line and there is no actionable crime in reading the material from any of the myriad of sites featuring the Wikileaks documents.
Cuomo is right about status of reporters being clear and protected. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the media is allowed to publish material that may have been obtained illegally and declared a law unconstitutional to the extent that it would make such media use unlawful. The Court reaffirmed the need to protect the first amendment interests and took particular note of the fact that the material was a matter of public interest:
“The Court holds that all of these statutes violate the First Amendment insofar as the illegally intercepted conversation touches upon a matter of “public concern,” an amorphous concept that the Court does not even attempt to define. But the Court’s decision diminishes, rather than enhances, the purposes of the First Amendment, thereby chilling the speech of the millions of Americans who rely upon electronic technology to communicate each day.”
While technical arguments could be made that downloading is a form of possession of stolen documents, it is a dubious argument when the material is widely distributed and a matter of public interest. The weight of the existing case law militates heavily against the legal threat described on CNN.
“More importantly, most people do not downloading these documents but read them on line and there is no actionable crime in reading the material from any of the myriad of sites featuring the Wikileaks documents.”
In order to view something on your computer, it has to be downloaded. That’s what the folder named “Temporary Internet Files” for those using Internet Explorer is for. As such, user, at least temporarily, have possession of what they view.
So now we have a priesthood of the media…who will interpret the documents for us and tell us what to think. No thanks, Chris. We have far too many priests.
I would really like to see a citation for his legal opinion.
Justice Holmes – we started the priesthood of the press corps with Cardinal Walter Cronkite. He was the one who told us we lost the war in Vietnam. In my life I have never seen such a great military strategist.
Chris Cuomo is no Walter Cronkite. But I hear you.
Chris Cuomo has never impressed me as a particularly bright or industrious fellow. Really, he’s just an average guy who was fortunate enough to have been born into one of America’s political ruling families.
This is just one more example of why CNN has become known as the Clinton News Network. If the MSM was doing its job and actually reporting on these documents, people wouldn’t be needing to download them for themselves.
What about when government agencies steal private information and property from Americans without any type of due process? Apparently the law only works in one direction.
Clearly, federal staff and contractors are not subject to the rule of law.
Even now, police forces, private contractors and the national guard are arresting reporters who are recording events protesting pipelines. They make war with impunity. They engage in massive arms sales to our “supposed” enemies and they are recording as much of our information as possible. The only people not allowed to see our own govt.’s material are private citizens or low level military grunts.
First, the criticism of Cuomo as trying to keep people from reading this material (which is damaging to Clinton) seems a bit far-fetched. It is more likely that he felt obligated to disclose the uncertain legal status of such documents. However, he overstated the case in my view.
It’s hard to see any other way his comments could be interpreted than as a way of steering people away from the e-mails. Otherwise, why would he feel the need to highlight the illegality of possessing them and how it’s different if you rely on the media to tell you about them?
Lol. Cuomo, not Cuomi.
Re: people thinking the media is biased….
Many years ago I read the results of a survey that asked journalists if they thought of themselves as D/liberal or R/conservative. 80-85% said “D/l”
Subsequently, I read an analysis in HuffPo (of all places!) that looked a Federal Election donation records and analyzed all data where job=”journalist” and, again, it was 85% D/l
BUT, in trying to find the source of these studies, I’ve come up empty-handed.
Are you familiar with these studies?
Over the years, work has been done on the political opinions of occupational groups by the late Stanley Rothman and by Robert Lichter. Their earlier work was published in The Public Interest in 1982. Dr. Rothman published a monograph in 1996 which summarized much research. You should be able to find it at a local academic library.
If only Cuomo would be discussing the crime of allowing someone like Martha Raddatz–a feeble, way past her time, biased and abrasive screech owl–to moderate one of the debates. Her voice, alone, is a crime, but that will never be referenced by the Clinton hack, Chris Cuomi. I know. I expect a lot. Given that Cuomo, without the benefit of carrying his Daddy’s last name, would probably be selling socks and boxers at Macy’s, I am not surprised that the media used this dim bulb to so obviously mislead the listeners with regard as to what is and is not illegal with regard to these documents.
Are federal government staff and contractors, and state and local police forces, subject to the same laws as everyone else?
For example, “possession of stolen items is a crime and documents (including electronic communications) can be treated as stolen items.”
Where is the line drawn for government agents being able to violate laws as part of their jobs?
If there is a line, it is gray and infinitely thin.
CNN has been actively suppressing information that wikileaks has been putting into the public domain. They have aided the Clinton campaign by giving out debate questions, writing pleasant stories for Clinton and even changing nearly live responses from a debate focus group because they did not like the answers people gave. They are meeting at private press dinners and are happy to write the talking points Clinton gives them.
Now this. Trying to scare people from reading information we have a right to know. They aren’t acting as a press. They are a press agency for the Clinton campaign. Trying to scare people from looking at information which is damaging to their candidate of choice is disgusting. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is an act of fascism.
Until just a few years ago, it was a felony in some southern states for two people of the opposite sex to cohabitate in the same residence. Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, it still might be illegal in some states today. Since CNN is based in Atlanta, they may want to update all of us on the status of those laws also.
Until just a few years ago, it was a felony in some southern states for two people of the opposite sex to cohabitate in the same residence.
I doubt outside your imagination, inasmuch as recognition of common-law marriage was common prior to about 1930.
Shouldn’t Press and Media organizations be reminding American’s that we have a system of “Self-Government” within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution – we are above Congress and presidents in the hierarchy – we choose our own leaders.
We, the American people, also are the only ones with the authority to amend the letter & spirit of the U.S. Constitution – not presidents and not even the U.S. Supreme Court.
As the famous saying goes “democracy itself cannot exist with excessive secrecy” – voters can’t self-govern when we allow officials to assume authorities that they really don’t have under our U.S. Constitution.
The free Press and Media only survive with a strong First Amendment, it’s curious that more of these organizations don’t put up a greater fight to preserve our Bill of Rights.
I sat at lunch on saturday for about an hour and CNN was playing on a TV in the corner of the establishment. For the whole time I was there all they had running was the anti Trump accusations from women. Even after a commercial breaks they came back to they same topics over and over. Amazing really amazing.
I guess that your observation points out 2 things to me. 1. they protest too much, 2. that cable channel channel is really the Clinton News Network.
How much free advertising do you think she gets there?
Many years ago, the NYT said that it is their role to steer and determine the outcome of out national elections for the good of the country. HA!
If for no other reasons, it is to show the liberal left that their elitist punk attitudes no longer are in touch with mainstream America. And with the direction of the SCOTUS at stake determining the future of America, you can guess why most people despise the EAST COAST establishment and their beliefs of that America should become.
GO TRUMP
This will be listed for the Darwin Awards this year. This is just plain stupid. The MSM is not reporting on these emails because they make Hillary look bad.
“… supporters of Donald Trump who view CNN and other networks openly supporting Clinton or attacking Trump.”
Let me set you straight on that. I am not a supporter of Donald Trump, would not vote for him if he were the only person running, but CNN and other networks absolutely are openly supporting Clinton and openly attacking Trump.
I totally agree. I think Trump is a buffoon whose candidacy was created by the Republican “leadership” arrogantly refusing to listen to their base. But the open bias of the MSM is astonishing. They’ve thrown out all pretense of of being neutral or of being “news” organizations. CNN is just a 24-hour Trump bashing machine.
And once again Mr. Chris Cuomo and CNN reinforce our impressions of the MSM.
Ball is in their court to change our minds about their value.
I will say it loud. I am a Cub fan and I am proud. Cub Lives Matter. Go Cubs.
We can have whatever we want. The Trump/Hillary battlte is not all that important. We need the Cubs to beat the Dodgers. THAT is important. The rest is snodgrass.