Friday, February 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
To facilitate class discussion outside the classroom and improve discussion during class meetings
About Me
- SPN
- Branch Campus U, Midwest, United States
- Associate Professor of Political Science teaching constitutional theory and politics to undergraduate and graduate students.
Political Theory and Political Science
Constitutional Law Resources
Legal and Political Commentary
- Andrew Samwick
- Andrew Sullivan
- Balkinization
- Bitch Ph.D.
- BlackProf
- Chicago Law Professors
- Concurring Opinions
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Feminist Law Professors
- Feministing
- Findlaw Legal commentary
- Girl w/ Pen!
- Glenn Greenwald
- Informed Comment
- Lawrence Lessig
- Marginal Revolution
- Matthew Yglesias
- Megan McArdle
- No Comment (Harper's)
- Radley Balko
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- Volokh Conspiracy
3 comments:
I would say this situation is consistent with the ruling in New York Times v US that said what is merely embarrassing for the administration is not necessarily an issue of national security. Therefore would be ruled as protected speech. The judge of this particular case also needs to consider the chilling effect this would have on any anonymous sources.
i believe that it depends on the nature of the information coming from a particular source. There is a difference between information that is embarassing and national security secrets that if released could damage the U.S.
Post a Comment