Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrockway | Hacker News Reader

They're not really threatening anything, they're just asking "please don't cover this story". That's their right and it's not censorship unless the journalist faces consequences for covering the story (no future interviews, harassment by the legal system, etc.) It doesn't seem like any consequences are mentioned or implied, so this doesn't bother me. Of course the TSA doesn't want negative press. Would you?

View on HN

No, they're not asking ""please don't cover this story"". They are "strongly cautioning" them not to, which can reasonably be interpreted as a veiled threat.

A threat to do what?

"I know where you live."

What is that a threat to do?

How about, "Be careful."?

The government's powers are limited by the Constitution. Someone who threatens to follow you home and kill you, however, is operating in an environment without restrictions, and you might therefore worry that you're actually going to be killed.

"Prior restraint" is a well-tested concept and it doesn't do very well in court. And all the government has to harass you are the courts.

Just because you think that the only way the government is capable of harassing you is with the courts, does not mean that they are not capable of veiled threats. A threats are not limited to personal physical violence.

Though I of course strongly disagree with your premise anyway, particularly when the governmental agency in question is the DHS.

The government should not be in the business of telling the press what to cover. Individuals and businesses, sure. Government, no. I understand there are occasional exceptions due to national security, but those requests come from the highest levels of government and are rare. This is some asshole at the TSA calling up reporters to spread FUD. Completely indefensible.

Well I work in the press and the government can say what they want. It's wrong for the press to obey the government's every wish and it is wrong for the press to immediately ignore the government's every opinion. If a NASA PR person tells me that the agency has determined the Earth to be round that doesn't mean that I need to launch an investigation into the possible flatness of the earth.

There's a difference between "telling/informing" and mandating. The latter is bad; the former is...well, part of a government's job is to disseminate information.

I think it is actually pretty common for authorities not to cover a story if it is in the public interest. For example, a kidnapping case in progress and so on.

The question then, is it in the public interest not to cover this story. I'd say it would probably not matter so much from a security standpoint, but more so for the amount of mayhem that could ensue at airport security if this was public knowledge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com