HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017215.jpg

4.2.12 WC: 191694 Not only has the verdict of history condemned the words of the Sedition Act, it has also condemned the selective manner in which it was enforced against certain journalists and newspapers but not others. If there are to be any restrictions of freedom in the press, they should be applied uniformly. Ifthe publication of classified material is to be prosecuted, then all who publish it should be prosecuted, not only the marginal, the powerless, the “irresponsible” and the unpatriotic --- in the eyes of the government . If all are prosecuted, there is the possibility of the self-correcting mechanism of democracy operating to change the law, by narrowing it to criminalize only those categories of currently classified information that truly endanger national security. If untrammeled prosecutorial discretion is permitted, then the law can be kept as broad and overinclusive as it currently is, without fear that the New York Times will be caught in its web. But if only the weak and the unpopular are selected for prosecution, the pressures for change will diminish. Moreover, selective prosecution of only certain journalists who violate broad statutes will encourage some in the media to curry favor with the government, and the government to curry favor with certain media. This is an unhealthy and dangerous relationship in a democracy in which the press is supposed to check the government and be independent of its control. The exercise of some discretion is necessary under the statutory scheme that currently criminalizes the publication of classified material. If all journalists who publish any classified material were to be prosecuted, there would be few left. The New York Times and its publishers, editors, and national security reporters would be convicted felons, since the current statutes are written in the broadest of terms that invite the exercise of discretion, which has always been employed to immunize the mainstream media. In a definitive history of this problem, the author, Gabriel Schoenfeld, argues that an appropriate balance must be struck and that neither the press nor Congress can be relied on to strike that balance. Surprisingly, and wrongly in my view, he places his greatest reliance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and in the common sense of juries. History has not vindicated this trust, especially in times of national turmoil and fear. For me, a better democratic answer is for the courts to demand that legislatures enact clear, precise and extremely limited prohibitions on the real-time disclosure of only the most necessary of secrets. These statutes must neither be overinclusive or underinclusive (as are current laws). They should be capable of uniform and universal application that constrain the power of the government to pick and choose. Precise codification is not a perfect solution to an intractable dilemma, but it would be a significant improvement over the unacceptable current situation. In vibrant democracies there will always be tensions between the government’s need to keep secrets and the news media’s need to reveal them. There will never be a perfect solution or an agreed-upon balance. This is as it should be. Constant tension between the government and the press is an essential requisite of our system of checks and balances. 128 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017215