Hearing on National Security Leaks

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Steve Vladeck says:


    Thanks for the post! Just to be clear, at one of the prior hearings on the same topic, I _did_ offer some specific suggestions for reform–see my testimony at this link. My sense going into today’s hearing, which the various colloquies (and calumnies) basically confirmed, is that the current attention is more about giving the current Administration a black eye than thinking through meaningful prospective (and bipartisan) reform…

  2. AndyK says:

    Why is it fine to take into account the intent of the leaker but not the publisher, as a matter of principle and not the First Amendment?

  3. Mary-Rose says:

    Steve, thanks for the helpful leak to your prior written testimony that gives a number of great ideas for reforming the Espionage Act. As you mentioned yesterday, your written testimony states that the harm is the same no matter what the intent of the leaker (or government outsider who repeats information received from an outsider), but it appears that you would recommend some sort of intent requirement for both government insiders and outsiders. I am not sure whether you base this suggestion on a matter of principle (as Andy suggests) or whether it is based on your reading of the First Amendment. Andy, I agree with you that it would not make any sense at all to allow leakers to escape prosecution whenever they had good motives but not permit third parties to make the same argument. More to come on this topic!