It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Although Wikileaks’ foreign editors might be prosecuted under U.S. law for obtaining classified military records, it was not unlawful to publish the information, concluded a report from the Congressional Research Service.
But the CRS report, written by national security law specialist Jennifer K. Elsea, turned up a 1964 district court decision which suggested that foreign publishers do enjoy First Amendment rights, if only because American readers have a right to the information that they publish. “The essence of the First Amendment right to freedom of the press is not so much the right to print as it is the right to read,” that court ruled. Therefore, “the rights of readers are not to be curtailed because of the geographical origin of printed materials.”
Originally posted by Chance321
Your right, your right. But who's to say we're not being played? What better way covertly then to have a wikileaks start releasing huge amounts of US info, the government steps in saying enough is enough "for your own good We need to control the net."
This whole thing feels like a set up.
Point being when you have an elite family like the Rothchilds that own half the worlds debt and 200 trillion in assets do you really think that anything happens in this world without a "controlled' reason behind it??
Now, publishers -- such as the NY Times, Wall Street Journal & Wikileaks -- are protected by the First Amendment so long as the information is: true, newsworthy, and accurately reported. Could they then publish your social security number? No, because it does not constitute newsworthy information that the general public would be interested to know and/or read.