First Ammendment rights versus security concerns
Chris Elliott of elliott.org and Steven Frischling of FlyingWithFish.com got hold of and published Transportation Security directives following the failed terrorist incident on a Detroit-bound plane. You know the story. I don't need to recap it here. The Department of Homeland Security wants to know how these two bloggers obtained these confidential documents and have subpoenaed them to find out. No one is diminishing the need for vigilence and security when it comes to air travel, but IMO, Homeland Security is barking up the wrong tree when their concern is with who leaked these documents rather than paying full attention to plugging the holes in the security system.
In the old world of traditional news, reporters, their editor bosses and their publisher bosses stood firm to protect their First Ammendment rights (that's the Freedom of the Press one). Think Watergate. Now independent bloggers in many cases have become watchdogs since the mainstream media is crumbling and/or becoming a vehicle for info-tainment and so-called "reality TV." For journalists, it doesn't get more real than the need to protect sources and maintain freedom to publish -- no less online than in print or broadcast. They don't have powerful corporations and squadrons of lawyers behind them. They should have all of us behind them. When they break news like this that affects us, they are on our side as travelers (and as travel journalists). Let's be on their side.
Read Chris Elliott's report of the subpoena here, Steve Frischling's here and travel writer/blogger (and until recently USA Today travel reporter) Chris Gray Faust's commentary here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Thanks for bringing this story to my attention, Claire.
ReplyDeleteMSNBC wrote about this hours after you did. Congratulations. And I hope those gutsy bloggers prevail in their fight with the Government. "Another Chris"
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with First Amendment rights. However, if someone in the TSA is leaking security procedures, the Government, I believe, has the right to investigate and find out who it is.
ReplyDeleteWe can sit here and discuss how important the First Amendment is to the media, but the TSA doesn't seem concerned that it was published; they seem concerned that is was leaked. If someone is leaking security procedures to bloggers, what are they leaking to terrorists and those who want to harm us?
The big picture here is that several hundred people are still alive because a bomb malfunctioned and failed to blow up a plane. And if a blogger releasing the name of a source will help the Government prevent this from happening again, I'm all for the subpoenas and whatever action the Government feels necessary to take.
I have no interest in being blown up in the sky because journalists want to get into a pissing match with the Government over which TSA agent sent an e-mail.
QuitLaffin et al. - The Department of Homeland Security, having realized that it overstepped its boundaries and presumably finding no indication that subpoenaing journalists and making off with one of their computers was not justified in making air travel safer, withdrew the subpoeonas. See http://tinyurl.com/yeq9tsf .
ReplyDeleteBesides, there was not necessarily a leak. According to slashdot.com of similar tech site, the government itself posted a redacted version of the directives that were easily unredacted by people with fairly basic computer skills.
Chris's post mortem on his ordeal (is "ordeal" an overstatement? I don't think so) is at http://www.elliott.org/blog/to-the-team-of-friends-allies-and-advisers-who-helpe d-make-the-subpoena-go-away/ . To me, it indicates that journalists need to stand together when under assault -- and that those who read their words ought to recognize the risk they sometimes take.
ReplyDelete