Why is the free press allowed to report anything?

Unless I'm mistaken, people don't blame the press for reporting things that get others in trouble for reporting the same things. They're free to report whatever they like regardless of whether or not it gives away "state secrets."

Lets take the elephant in the room Edward Snowden, he leaked many documents to the press and the government clearly would have come down on him very hard had he not fled the country. However the government did not come down on the people who reported it, nor did they get labeled as traitors. Arguably if they had not reported we along with the our country's enemies would not know of the NSA's exploits, but because they did report it everyone knows. Somehow though they are seen as neutral messengers as opposed to being called traitors or whistle blowers.

What do you guys think? Why is the press allowed to report just about anything when we can't take anything to them for reporting?

That is an uncomfortable idea.

The First Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights safeguards the press along with the freedom of most speech and the ability to assemble. If not for that, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech might have been a failure because of censorship by fear of legal punishment for reporting news. Along with the Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is the foundation of our society.

The press is allowed to report whatever they choose to as it's a right given to them by the Constitution. It's up to the press to choose which stories they cover and don't and we as a customer dictate whether we choose to read the article or listen to the soundbyte.

As for the Snowden thing, countless others already had the same clearence to the files Snowden did so the likelihood is that the info Snowden leaked had already been passed on to our enemies be it through a double agent or someone looking to profit by selling the info to them.

A free press is very important. You are 8x more likely to get killed by a cop, than a terrorist.

I agree that the free press is important, but why have them if we aren't allowed to bring anything to them for reporting on?

It's uncomfortable, but if we are to argue that certain people who aid the press in obtaining information are whistle blowers why are not also accusing the press in being accomplices to spreading said information?

Privacy is dead; NSA recording via any technology. I am sure billionaires can afford 'hacking' the NSA and access anyone's private life.

Free press let me report.

That seems like saying the First Amendment is more trouble than it is worth.

Freedom of Press isn't absolute and has limitations on what the press can do. Snowden broke the law when he gave the files to the media but the media had the right to publish the files once they got their hands on them. What the media usually does is access leaked files they are given and determine if publishing them is worth the outcome.

Granted, reporters aren't intel analysts and may not realize what damage certain files may do but they usually have the common sense not to outright publish war plans thay will obviously get friendly troops killed. Note that I said usually. WikiLeaks doesn't have the same discretion considering that they published many of the files Manning leaked without screening them.

A big thing to consider is how the press got their hands on files can determine if they can get slammed. If a source gives it to them they are usually good to go. On the other hand, if they actively coerced someone to steal classified files or stole them themselves that is a different story.

One more thing I would warn people about who live in the US is the Espionage Act. Just because you aren't in the military or working for the government doesn't mean you can't be charged under it. I would be careful with any classified files I got my hands on, especially the people who take those files and put them on forums or Wikipedia. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from everything.

why is snowden still alive?

Because chances are, if the press managed to get its hand on state secrets and classified information then rival states and their intelligence agencies and any other one or entity that is truly interested in all of this already got their hands on it. So allowing the press to report it isn't really all that detrimental to the state. It also has the added benefit of giving the state some PR points.

However, if any government knew that any given journalist or press agency is in possession of something that is truly classified and hasn't gotten out yet, you bet your ass they will try to contain the situation by any means possible.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

This is a repeated maxim in Orwell's 1984, which is an oft-cited but rarely-read book, sadly. Regardless of Orwell's many assumptions, and regardless how you might feel about his brand of jaded socialism, herein lies the one simple truth of freedom, if you understand the context and the meaning. It is the freedom to say that which is true, even if the government does not want you to, or wants to pretend that which is untrue is true. Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four, even if the government wants to say it is five. Freedom is the freedom to say that the NSA spies upon you, and how it does so, even if the government wants to pretend that it does not.

Why do you want to say this two plus two make four? What are the possible indirect results of your math? Inconsequential. If you may say that the truth is the truth, all else follows.

The important question here is not why the press is allowed freedoms others are not, but why should others not all be protected by the same rights? The mere act of engaging in journalism makes you a journalist. Whether you're currently in the employ of The Guardian, or are a blogger, or are tweeting the news, freedom remains the freedom to say that the truth is the truth.

Because when you are granted access to intell you are fully instructed the ramifications of passing said intell on. The Press did not steal the intell and they were not agents of the government. It actually has nothing to do with the freedom of the press but the way intelligence is governed......one which all individuals working within are aware.

'Free speech' got redefined. Blogging better not get questioned. I'm not tresspassing and taking advantage of adults.