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.
It isn’t just CNN whose primary function is to control the thoughts and behavior of the American public.
The steady consolidation of the US Corporate Media has made it increasingly easy for the US/International Oligarchy to manipulate public opinion, including attempting to ensure the election to public office of vetted candidates who will reliably represent the interests of that self-serving political and economic elite.
Fortunately, an increasing number of Americans are obtaining their information from sources outside (at least for now) the ignorance-engendering and stupefying confines of the Oligarchy’s public relations arm, the Corporate Media.
The consistent censoring by the Corporate Media of public intellectual Noam Chomsky, as well as his having been able to go around them to reach the American public through his books and writing on the Internet, is only one example of this two-fold phenomenon:
“Noam Chomsky: Just 6 Corporations Own 90% of Media in the US
“ Ralph Nader and leading linguist Noam Chomsky engaged in a much anticipated discussion in early October on Ralph Nader Radio Hour. The two raised questions about changing the media narrative in a totalitarian-like state, and how Chomsky got dismissed from the mainstream altogether.
” ‘How often have you been on the op-ed pages of The New York Times?’ Nader asked Chomsky.
“For Chomsky, the last time was over a decade ago.
” ‘[I was asked] to write about the Israeli separation wall, actually an annexation wall that runs through the West Bank and breaking apart the Palestinian communities… condemned as illegal by the World Court,’ Chomsky told Nader.
“Chomsky would later pen a similar piece for CNN on the 2013 Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But Chomsky has never been interviewed on the network; nor has he appeared on NBC, ABC or CBS.”
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/39693-noam-chomsky-just-6-corporations-own-90-of-media-in-the-us
J’adore Chomsky. Just can’t figure out why he says that Trump is more dangerous than Clinton. Maybe the Machine threatened his grands or something.
Chomsky is a Jewish intellectual. His is not up with the white nationalist movement.
He’s 88 years old and likely doesn’t publish anymore. His work was never grant-intensive.
Why would the media interview Chomsky on any subject in which he is not expert? The man’s book is linguistics, and he works on theoretical questions rather than empirical study. That he and the banking law maven Edward Hermann write books on political topics is not of any necessary interest to anyone except the marks who buy their books.
>> “In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.” <<
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash
96%. Maybe Trump supporters have a reason to distrust the press.
As do Progressive Bernieorbusters. We watched in horror as the mainstream media took down Bernie. And we are watching Jill Stein being ignored and demonized as well.
The MSM is toast.
If we ever get back to a Republican president, will he or she change all these senseless unconstitutional rules and laws or will the senseless unconstitutional rules and laws suddenly make perfect constitutional sense?
Do you mean the Republicans in Name Only who control the party or the Constitutional Republic-ans? Absolutely not for the first batch they are the right wing OF the left. For sure for the second batch. But we haven’t had one of them since Reagan or possibly ……..well before Wilson back there somewhere.
I think what many people are learning is that with Democrats, you get Corrupt And Bat Sh*t Crazy where as with Republicans it’s the other way round (much like John Kenneth Galbraith’s famous explanation of the difference between Capitalism and Communism – that is: In Capitalism, man exploits man whereas in Communism, it’s the other way around”).
I am looking forward to the demise of the Clinton Newz Network.
If it’s illegal to have stolen property, all immigrants to this country – meaning everyone who has come or is descended exclusively from those who have come here over the last 400+ years – and who is still alive, should be thrown in the slammer. Except for the homeless who have nothing and therefore can’t have stolen anything.
Ha! So the meek DO inherit the US if not the whole earth thingy outright!
Obama had the NSA attack Assange’s access to the internet. They are frightened of the truth.
Therefore, reading the NYT and their stolen IRS records of Trump would, by this idiot’s “logic” also be illegal. Right??
Sharyll Atkisson calls this MSM altering reality for Hillary, The Truman Show. Perfect metaphor.
Those tax returns were not stolen. They were mailed by Marla Maples.
RB –
It’s always a pleasure to know that intelligent, THINKING people like you are all around us – even though it’s actually a very small percentage of the sentient beings traveling the dark journey.
You have a very good mind, and I’m not saying that just because I happen to agree with what you say. Okay, I’ll admit that might have something to do with it – but honestly, I try to be a critical reader, and the thing is, your reasoning is fallacy-free, thus not easy to refute.
Have you seen this important video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFLpZcY3ss
I’m confident you will appreciate it.
Simple, we should all self-identify as “citizen journalists”
CNN AND CHRIS CUOMO –
S.T.F.U., G.T.F.O, AND F.O.
(because I won’t waste time to thrash you thoroughly).
As a Free Man, I will do whatever I choose, as long as my actions do not detract from the freedom, or damage the property, of others. I apologize if anyone is offended by my acronyms.
Judging from some of the posts here most of you do not trust MSM, fair enough. But I bet that most of you will all trust……….”TRUMP TV” …coming soon stay tuned.
People possessing these documents should be ready to claim the now-acceptable Clinton defense that they didn’t and don’t intend . . . whatever! Just ask Comey and Lynch to testify in your behalf.
Personally, I don’t recall reading them!
Read what? It’s just like sending an envelope with an address and a stamp. No proof there was anything inside nor that it didn’t get deleted with the rest of the third class junk spam mail
Not that proof is required for common citizens anymore. Let’s see you have a computer that is suspicious. Handcuff time. Velkom to zee U ES ES A.
The real news is we no longer have any real laws or any real Constitution – neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor local prosecutors will indict torturers or other war criminals. Warrantless wiretapping was a felony crime after 9/11, although legitimate cases could have easily obtained the approval of an Article III magistrate judge.
The DOJ does use the Espionage Act of 1917, not on real spies, but legal whistleblowers reporting waste, fraud and abuse.
The real news is that most Americans know there is no “Equal Justice under Law” – just arbitrary rules for the peasants. Americans have lost total faith in most government institutions and that is a very dangerous “State of the Union”!
RB –
It’s always a pleasure to know that intelligent, THINKING people like you are all around us – even though it’s actually a very small percentage of the sentient beings traveling the dark journey.
You have a very good mind, and I’m not saying that just because I happen to agree with what you say. Okay, I’ll admit that might have something to do with it – but honestly, I try to be a critical reader, and the thing is, your reasoning is fallacy-free, thus not easy to refute.
Have you seen this important video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFLpZcY3ss
I’m confident you will appreciate it.
This is sick !!!!
Remember the talk about the ” Slippery Slope ” of Liberal Society. CNN can try to dictate what you read, what you see ! Welcome to the World of Hillary Clinton !!!
I don’t trust the media, especially with political material. Whether out of necessity of time constraints or political bias, they tend to cherry-pick and “interpret”. I’ll do my own reading and interpreting, even my own cherry-picking, thank you very much.
Exactly. Never trust an intermediary with a vested interest. Always independently read and verify.
No it is not. The culpability if any goes to the media of whatever type that publishes the information or otherwise posts it in the public domain. That starts with the NY Times and goes on down to any form of information dissemination that introduces it into the public domain. Knowingly publishing stolen material at the beginning might have some legs but probably not since Daniel what’s his names psychiatrist files were published as a book way back when.
Those who are offering money for such information are guilty from the start whether of not they get any any return on the offer. That’s a criminal activity by offering to take part in a criminal act and the offer itself is the action.
Unless you are working for Clinton.
The Media: “Don’t you dare read this for yourself! We will explain to you what you need to know, and what you need to know is absolutely nothing. Move along.”
A technical nit: you say “more importantly, most people do not downloading these documents but read them on line.”
This is not a relevant distinction. When you view a webpage, it is first “downloaded” to your computer. It is also stored there, in your browser cache, until the cache is cleared or the allocated cache space is needed for a more-recently viewed page.
You’re right. You’re nit picking. First, to download when applied to a human, implies the intention of storing some specific data resource persistently (on disk, flash, etc.) such that one can get at it by name or identity at will. Page cache generally occurs outside of your intention and awareness; you are not aware of when or what is stored or deleted. Users who even know about this cache may or may not also be aware that some browsers allow turning cache on or off. If off, cache is in memory only. If on, (default), any data stored is on disk only temporarily with little user control over the process except going in manually and deleting files independently of the browser and it’s cache algorithm.
page cache-> web page cacheit’s-> itsDifferent groups can not have different rights, that destroys the idea that all men are created equal.
Besides in today’s world we are all “the press.”
especially for pressing issues.