Infinite MonkeysI consider myself a strong--even extreme--defender of the First Amendment. I'm against the flag burning amendment, I question a lot of the actions of the FCC, and I am disgusted by the allegations (if true) that the FBI might be tracing reporters' phone calls.
But the First Amendment is not a license to say whatever you want without consequence or criticism. The New York Times revelation of the SWIFT program--which the article admitted was both legal and effective--is simply beyond the pale.
Robb argues that such revelations are good, because the government should have no secret programs, and the press promotes openness. We're arguing about that elsewhere, but I have to take issue with the idea that the NYT is promoting openness. That idealistic dream is a nice one, but it ignores two crucial facts: one, that our enemy has no such standard of openness, and no press revealing their secret plans; and, two, that the New York Times itself is not investigating the enemy. If one day there was a front page story about a U.S. Government anti-terrorism program, and the next a front page story revealing, in detail, how Al Qaeda funds its terror cells, you might be able to make an argument that the press is simply casting a light on secrets. But that is clearly not happening. In fact, perhaps because of what happened to Daniel Pearl, there is very little press investigation of terrorist activities. Any such stories are usually just to give terrorists a platform to explain why they hate us and are justified in their barbaric activities.
Even all but the most extreme libertarians agree that the government has certain duties, and key among these is protecting our freedom from enemies. The New York Times should explain why is feels it has the right to undermine this duty and endanger us all.
Posted by David at June 27, 2006 01:17 PM