how far do...

our freedom's go? should the new york times be held responsible for what they have done?

the new york times has released highly classified material in their 'newspaper'. certain information concerning surveillance during this conflict. (i refuse to call it a war, but that's for another time). is this wrong? someone, somewhere would then be able to pick up the 'newspaper' and read what our government is doing, and then would have the upperhand on us. putting us in a compromising position. what then?

what is the newspaper's responsibility?

bill keller (editor of the new york times) believes that if they would be found guilty of compromising national security then they feel that their first amendment rights would be in violation, and that this is just being blown out of the water because the pieces stand against/criticisms the government. wsj opinion freedom of press? but how free is free?

i know that i cannot go into a crowed theatre and yell 'fire', for it would put others in danger, if there was no fire. is this a limitation of freedom of speech? in some sense, yes. i can't speak what ever i want, if it puts someone else in danger. same case applies here. what they have done is put the u.s. in danger. thus compromising our security, and safety as a nation.

so yes, they should be held accountable. even if someone else 'leaked' them the info, they have a responsibility not to publish it.