"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

[Ichingcarpenter]

John Kerry representing Vietnamese Veterans Against the War at a protest in Washington, D.C., April 20-21, 1971 (Photo: Library of Congress, LC-U9-24273)






?w=620

Snowden at human rights Meeting. conference.










Recent State Department briefing.


QUESTION: You don’t think that he should have a forum? Has he – he’s forfeited his right to freedom of speech as well?


MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, Mr. Snowden – : Our concern here is that he’s been provided this opportunity to speak in a propaganda platform

[jberryhill]

1. What does the First Amendment have to do with it?

So, if you are my doctor, and I enter a contractual relationship with you as my patient, you are free to publish my medical records?

[flpoljunkie]

2. Not only the First Amendment, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Excerpt from Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S. by Daniel Ellsberg

But Snowden’s contribution to the noble cause of restoring the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments to the Constitution is in his documents. It depends in no way on his reputation or estimates of his character or motives — still less, on his presence in a courtroom arguing the current charges, or his living the rest of his life in prison. Nothing worthwhile would be served, in my opinion, by Snowden voluntarily surrendering to U.S. authorities given the current state of the law.

I hope that he finds a haven, as safe as possible from kidnapping or assassination by U.S. Special Operations forces, preferably where he can speak freely.

What he has given us is our best chance — if we respond to his information and his challenge — to rescue ourselves from out-of-control surveillance that shifts all practical power to the executive branch and its intelligence agencies: a United Stasi of America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story_1.html

[Igel]

9. So what you're saying is ...

That Ellsberg was arrested and his property searched and seized for the trial that's going to be held in the next few weeks. The government's just drawing up the means necessary to make it seem like the arrest was a good idea and the penalty that's already decided on is appropriate?

Too bad we can't protest. In this case I'd assume that his family will be notified of his arrest by after the punishment's been decided on, with a note saying that she may want to go to the prison where he's being held and bring warm clothes, toothbrushes, personal necessities and even some food to help augment what he'll get when he's sent away to prison.

Because that's what I keep getting told we're *worse* than. So if we're worse than that, that's the bare minimum I expect to see. Otherwise the claim's falsified. Just like vitalism in chemistry, vaccine-based autism conspiracies, and Lamarckism.

Then again, those are still oft-mentioned claims at the present.

[Fumesucker]

5. No, but I'm free to give them to the government

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

3. "In Washington, DC"

You left off "In Moscow" on Snowden's caption.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. OK we need free speech zones

both are US citizens speaking against their government's policy but only allowed in certain circumstances.


Got It.....

[allin99]

12. lol, well DUH, due process only counts inside the U.S. why not free speech. lol

[sigmasix]

6. shouldn't one read the entire interview b4 setting hair alite?

The interviewer tried to get her to say Snowden should have no 1st amendment rights- many times through-out the state department conference, some interview questioners attempted different semantic contortions to insist that snowden's 1st amendment rights are being denied. Mrs Psaki denied this characterization over and over. Instead of hearing the truth, some interviewers in the state department hearing kept insinuating that Psaki was covering for shadowy agents (of Obama?), out to deny 1st amendment rights to Snowden.
In the interest of fairness shouldn't the OP contain the whole conference questioning session so that the behavior of the interviewers can be examined for extreme confirmation bias and general dishonesty.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Show me the quote..

I'm game.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. Duh, Ich!

Where does the constitution's amendments mention the president, State, or the FBI? Huh? Huh? Because they aren't mentioned, those amendments don't apply. They no longer exist, not where national scrutiny is involved.

Sheesh, some people . . . .damned terrorist librul, America hating, socialists.
After all, it's for our own good. Trust me.

[Igel]

10. Or Moscow.

At the same time, I don't that a state dept. spokesperson is a legislator or that every word she said becomes law upon being uttered.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. I was hoping the sarcasm was dripping off my words.

I wonder, though, since congress has basically abandoned its duties, does that mean that the other branches must step in? What does that do to the bill of rights? With today's supremes, oh dear. We have trouble in river city.

[Catherina]

13. And yet...

[KoKo]

14. Kick