Do you think that the existence of classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment? I don't see how a nation can have secrets without being able to enforce at least some limitations on free (and commercial...) speech.
Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those person, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:...
Bill 79 was mostly about public schooling, but it contains the kernel of an argument for more open governance and against ubiquitous secrecy in language like "give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes".
Speaking of the Burr conspiracy, John Marshall issuing a subpoena to Jefferson regarding those papers is one of the earliest affirmations of the President being subject to the law and not above it.
But the way the law works is they get to retire in peace.
I don't think the latter should be enforceable by a contract. I think any review/editorial process should be the writer's own responsibility.
Democracies can't keep secrets, all the oversight mechanisms eventually rely on voters and fail if voters don't know what is going on. Making it clear to government employees that they will be sacked if they talk about something is fine. Short-term classification is theoretically a problem but workable in practice.
However it is well worth noting that capability related to PRISM probably started under Bush, expanded under Obama and may already have been used to surveil a presidential candidate with what is being revealed about the Trump campaign. That isn't a lot of political generations. Who knows what the democrat campaign will be subjected to by the current administration. We still might not know the full details of what is happening if classified capability is involved. From a systems perspective this is a rapidly developing disaster where voters can't make good decisions because information is being hidden. So yes classified info is antithetical to free speech.
By simply reporting corruption. Where Snowden got into trouble is that less than 0.1% of the documents he leaked describe anything illegal.
If the communities in control of classified material are frequently lying to the rest of the government about what is classified (seems likely) how is the government supposed to properly decide what is and isn't legal? How is the public supposed to direct the government about what should or shouldn't be illegal? This is the crux of the matter. There is a bunch of stuff going on that should be illegal that can't be made illegal because nobody is quite sure what is happening.
Some links related to the honesty of the intelligence head honchos:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/growing-evidence-tha...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...
In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks.
If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program instead of lists of compromised Chinese systems and a bunch of other things that will never be illegal, he would be a whistleblower instead of a fugitive criminal.
The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. I disagree with it on many counts, which is the concept known as 'my opinion'. Now your or my opinion might or might not line up with what everyone agrees is acceptable - but the mechanisms we have to figure that out involve (1) information being publicly available and (2) information being debated and (3) voting.
And this is going to why classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment - if someone goes into the intelligence community and says 'oh my god, all this should be illegal' then they need to be able to publicly lobby to have it made illegal.
> If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program...
That is dodging my point - the issue is whether or not the programs should be made illegal; what the intelligence agencies are developing the look like terrible apparatus that would have a welcoming home in any authoritarian state.
The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't?
> That is dodging my point
No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden's actions bad even in your very lenient view of what leaks should be protected.
Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public.
> What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't?
Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't count. But we all have experiences in the 20th century that show governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. There will be groups in America who want the entire surveillance system to be illegal. If I was an American voter I would want the whole thing shut down. The government literally can't be undertaking global projects and also be properly held to account for their actions if the voters are disallowed from being told about them. Even if I was happy with the system in principle it is likely that the individual actions are dodgy and corrupt.
The costs and benefits can't be weighed up by a voter if both classified.
Specifically, what in the Snowden leaks should be illegal? There were no facial recognition databases in there. So far, you have not given any reason why Snowden's leaks are permissible in your view.
Look up a Snowden US intelligence leak at random, and unless it's the phone metadata collection, it's legal.