TSA Tactics Fuel Blogosphere Backlash

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
As you can expect, the previously-reported story about the TSA bullying bloggers into giving up their sources for a TSA Travel Directive has caused a backlash among the close-knit blogger community and its readers. Among those criticizing the TSA’s actions is controversial but popular Michael Arrington of TechCrunch, who is quoted below. The TSA retracted the subpoena but the damage is done.

As bloggers, we have a duty of confidentiality to our sources. And that means keeping information confidential even if threatened with the tyranny of government. And even if the legislatures and courts haven’t decided that as bloggers we have real rights protecting us from that tyranny. I’ll never be surprised by a tyrannical government. In a sense, it’s their job. It’s our job as bloggers to stand up to that tyranny, even if our liberty has been threatened.
Click to expand...
 
Tyranny, tyranny, tyrannical and tyranny...all in the same quote. :rolleyes:
 
bucket said:
Tyranny, tyranny, tyrannical and tyranny...all in the same quote. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm a little disappointed that he couldn't fit tranny in there somewhere. That said man the TSA makes me so angry being a frequent flyer I get hassled every time no matter what because of my PC gear. TSA is just a bunch of fired McDonalds employees with security badges. I'd feel safer if Leslie Nielsen ran Homeland Security at this point.
 
Don't get me wrong, I think bloggers should have every right enjoyed by the traditional/vestigial media outlets, I just think people throw that word around way too much.
 
Give me Liberty
or
Give me death!
A blog is just that
One persons outlook......
If you can't take it at face value
Go away!!!!!!
 
words clearly hurt our government, and sticks and stones still break their bones
 
Each and every citizen in this country is in essence a journalist. If you see something and report it you are a journalist. You are a reporter. There is no special requirement or degree that you can hold that excludes you from such a duty of citizenship. The 1st Amendment assures you this right. You can be Joe Schmoe and follow a lead to a story and report on it and government could come against you and you would have protections. They know this and they don't like it and in reality, these are the very same people who should know better and yet still follow a directive of fascism and one wonders why the once healthy distrust of government has now become a malignant cancer on the body politic.
 
"All you motherfuckers are gonna pay. You are the ones who are the ball-lickers. We're gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little bitches......., we're gonna make 'em eat our shit, then shit out our shit, then eat their shit which is made up of our shit that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you motherfucks are next. Love, Jay and Silent Bob."
 
madcap magician said:
"All you motherfuckers are gonna pay. You are the ones who are the ball-lickers. We're gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little bitches......., we're gonna make 'em eat our shit, then shit out our shit, then eat their shit which is made up of our shit that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you motherfucks are next. Love, Jay and Silent Bob."
Click to expand...

"Jay and Silent Bob are fucking clown shoes.";)
 
Sorry but a security leak should be investigated and the Supreme Court in: Branzburg v Hayes and Zurcher v The Stanford Daily has agreed there is no protection afforded under the 1st amendment to prevent a reporter from revealing their source and further explained that provided their is a law enforcement need as presented to a court the government can subpoena and search news entities and employees.
 
kydsid said:
Sorry but a security leak should be investigated and the Supreme Court in: Branzburg v Hayes and Zurcher v The Stanford Daily has agreed there is no protection afforded under the 1st amendment to prevent a reporter from revealing their source and further explained that provided their is a law enforcement need as presented to a court the government can subpoena and search news entities and employees.
Click to expand...

But there isn't a law enforcement need. The only need is for the TSA to save a little face, since they've been caught with their pants down.
 
InorganicMatter said:
But there isn't a law enforcement need. The only need is for the TSA to save a little face, since they've been caught with their pants down.
Click to expand...

There isn't a need to find out who within TSA leaked a classified document in violation of their Non-Disclosure Agreement and Federal Law? So we should just let this single person decide what should and shouldn't be released to the public as they continue their career with access to restricted information? :rolleyes:

It is ironic that people complain about TSA not doing their job and also complain when TSA does their job, as in this case.
 
Just to be clear it was not a classified document in the traditional terms(classified,secret, top secret) it was SSI which is sensitive security information. But your other points are well taken.
 
madcap magician said:
Just to be clear it was not a classified document in the traditional terms(classified,secret, top secret) it was SSI which is sensitive security information. But your other points are well taken.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to confuse the people here with its real definition. SSI, FOUO, LES, TS, TS-SCI on and on and on. ;)
 
With all of the words starting with "tyrann-" in that quote, I am thoroughly disappointed to see the lack of the Tyrannosaurus Rex.
 
If someone in TSA violated a national security oath giving that info to a blogger, the blogger should not be protected from revealing the source. There is no Constitutional right to protect such a source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top