Why can't I post highly classified military information? Isn't it my 1st Amendment right?

[TPaine7]

Why can't I post nuclear launch codes? The design specs for the stealth bomber? NSA codes and code-breaking manuals? Why can't I libel my neighbors or con rich widows out of their money with false promises? Do we have free speech or not?

First Amendment supporters claim the right to both free speech and religion. But when it comes down to it, none of them really mean it. For instance, I'm planning a human sacrifice, but I can't get any ACLU legal support. Why the hypocrisy? My religion--ancient Canaanite--is older than a lot of religions that get full protection, like say Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

What the First Amendment extremists don't realize is that the instant they admit anything less than perfect freedom of speech and religion, they admit that ANY WORD, WORD COMBINATION OR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE CAN BE FORBIDDEN AT WILL.

If ANYTHING can be forbidden, EVERYTHING CAN. That's just common sense.

I don't like the word "purple." I find it aesthetically, morally and politically reprehensible. I've been talking to my senator about it for awhile, and have persuaded her to introduce a bill forbidding that horrible word, except in certain historical and military contexts. We expect some push-back from First Amendment extremists. But as soon as we point out that libel and slander are forbidden, along with verbal and written treason, human sacrifices and the like, they will either have to support those evils or shut up. As I said before:

If ANYTHING can be forbidden, EVERYTHING CAN. That's just common sense.

Who will join me in fighting against the word that must not be spoken? Or written?

(And be thankful I don't want to ban prayer. After all, that's no less a religious practice than human sacrifice.)

[FreakinDJ]

1. Negates the "I should own Machine Gun" argument

nice

I've been an avid sportsman/hunter all my life and I detest the "We should be able to own machine guns" crowd

[cowman]

2. But you can own machine guns

as long as you are willing to jump through all the hoops to do so

[PavePusher]

22. Why?

What's wrong with Citizens owning machine guns?

[FreakinDJ]

24. Same reason I shouldn't devuldge military secrets

even thou I have 1st amendment rights

[PavePusher]

28. What does owning machine guns have to do with divulging military secrets?

I don't see a parallel there...

[SoDesuKa]

26. We Need Machine Guns

What are you going to rely on when the socialists come to take away your liberties? Those Hutaree boys have the right idea. Don't wait till it's too late. </snark>

[Fumesucker]

3. They have done wonders with decaf lately.. It tastes almost as good as the high octane now.. n/t

[TPaine7]

4. Thanks. n/t

[Mother Smuckers]

5. I was thinking there was a different sort of high octane involved...

:D

[TPaine7]

9. Those types of arguments look quite ridiculous when they are applied

to anything other than teh gunz, don't they?

See my sig line. The OP was a public service.

[Mother Smuckers]

13. Yes, they do...and I apologize for letting my sarcasmometer get out of calibration.

:-)

[RandomThoughts]

6. Someone with only 24 posts posted a comment

about Ross Perot's connections to knowledge of illegal CIA stuff, it disapeared fast.

Not sure why.



I use to be a grocery clerk, so if I post things that are classified, it is because they are obvious. And probably should not be done or should be admitted to, if they are that obvious.

Information control is the sign of a society that can not defend its actions to its own people.



There is an arguement for secrecy, like a combination to a safe is secret so people don't take what is in there, that form of secrecy is used to protect something, but that requiers that society trust the agencies that have that power, if they can not earn that trust, they lose that privledge. And secrecy without citizen oversight leads to issues of corruption.

Evil has always needed darkness, because most people are good. Just about anything wrong, things people do not like, can only exist if hidden. Hence why secrecy is used for corruption so often. There are some other things wrong that requier education and thought to see, so in a way they can still be hidden in plain sight, but when a wrong is pointed out, most of society want it corrected.

[havocmom]

8. It disappeared fast because censorship is alive and well in America

and this will disappear too ;)

[spin]

7. Because before you were allowed to access classified information..

you were required to get a security clearance and go through a briefing that documented what would happen if you revealed classified information. To actually access the information, you had to have a "need to know".

When you no longer had a reason to have a security clearance you went through a debriefing and again were reminded that you knew information that was classified and that there were severe penalties if you were caught disclosing it.

You can reveal the information if you chose, but the results might mean that you would spend a LONG time in prison and face heavy fines.

[TPaine7]

12. Let's say some genius left it in the men's room.

It's still illegal for me to disclose battle plans, troop positions, military codes, etc., even if I came by the information honestly (say by mistaking the briefcase for mine or trying to identify the owner so I could return it).

[spin]

23. When you open up the briefcase, the classified document should

have a cover sheet on it which instructs you on what to do.

The document should be marked front and back with the level of classification.

I'm not sure what problems you would face if you innocently found classified data. If you did turn it in through proper channels, the person who was responsible for it being lost would definitely be looking forward to a really bad day.

[liberaltrucker]

10. This is why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

National Security

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president or other high-ranking official in the United States government. In the case of the president, do not even post jokes, as the Secret Service is not known for its sense of humor.

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating armed revolution or violent overthrow of the government of the United States.

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violence or military defeat against the United States, the U.S. military, US service people, or the people of the United States.

Do not post broad-brush smears against US service people. Do not blame the troops for the mistakes of their officers or their Commander-in-Chief. Show the appropriate level of respect to those individuals who have put their own lives on the line to defend this country.

Do not post unpublished information on troop movements, military maneuvers, or any other information which may compromise US national security.

[X_Digger]

11. Damn those ACLU hypocrites ;)

:sarcasm: lest anyone take that fully* seriously.



(I do think it a bit hypocritical of them to support amendments 1-10 except #2.)

[CreatureFeature]

14. All of our rights are safer when ALL of us defend ALL of each others rights,

[X_Digger]

15. Agreed. n/t

[The_Commonist]

16. Just because you CAN post nuclear launch codes...

...doesn't mean you should.
Just because you CAN wear a .45 on your hip when you go to Starbucks for a latte, doesn't mean you should.
Not everything that you have the right to do is appropriate to do in all circumstances.
I don't understand why some people don't get this...

[TPaine7]

17. I can't--LEGALLY--post nuclear launch codes.

But then you knew that, didn't you?

My post has nothing to do with "appropriateness" and you knew that too, didn't you? If not, in what circumstances do you think human sacrifices are appropriate?

IMHO, people who are themselves pretending to miss the point shouldn't wonder about others not getting things.

[The_Commonist]

18. Then I guess I missed your point...

Maybe make it clearer?

[TPaine7]

19. I was refuting an anti-Second Amendment premise.

Specifically I was refuting the feeble and discredited premise used over and over on this board by those who oppose the Second Amendment:

If ANYTHING can be forbidden, EVERYTHING CAN. That's just common sense.

If you want to see that premise in action, click here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=312832&mesg_id=312832

As I said in post 9,

Those types of arguments look quite ridiculous when they are applied to anything other than teh gunz...

Sorry I was unclear.

[FreakinDJ]

25. Just try posting nuclear launch codes a SEE what happens

you would end up rendered in about an hour - just as I positive this thread is setting off bells as the NSA

[mvccd1000]

20. Perhaps...

... it's because each and every one of the examples you posted can be shown to cause actual harm to actual people.

On the other hand, 10 million people can march with 10 million machine guns and not a soul will be harmed. See the difference?

Carrying a gun is much like HAVING the nuclear launch codes. No harm is done.
Shooting that gun is much like PUBLISHING the nuclear launch codes. Harm is done.

Most of us have no trouble with the distinction.

[TPaine7]

21. I totally agree. I think I should have made my point more explicitly. See post 19.

[mvccd1000]

29. Gotcha. I missed that one. :) nt

[Taitertots]

27. The restriction is the same

I can't kill people with my guns and you can't kill people with your words (screaming fire etc).

I can't rob people with my guns and you can't rob people with your words (fraud).

I can't kill people with my guns and you can't kill people for your religion (human sacrifice).