this is an outrageous in french -- infringement on the first amendment how can you support that? the first half of your statement but i don't believe it is the outrageous infringement because how can we say when we have bombs going off and issues of national security again? lou: are you one of those people if i may, a counselor who absolutely believes because we are in the of war on tear 300 million americans should surrender individual rights and liberty? >> no. lou: should be jealous of those rights and demands his administration follow the constitution of the united states? >> i respect what you are saying and the first amendment but to air on one side or the other i will air on this side do what you have to do to present -- protect us against the crime. >> nt administration after september 11th if you read the patriot act with some hundred pages. lou: i was not thrilled with it and still am not. >> they can serve warrants and subpoenas so it is a balance of the what was hilarious is the press pass to have unfettered access. they have the talking points that were down. lou: he

the claim of the nixon administration now here you've got to ask yourself well what is the first amendment blame. the claim is that a son can be punished if in fact there is no clear and present danger to the country and if you look at the stuff that has songs published. i would argue there's no clear and present danger to the country i mean it's been three years were the danger i mean you're still here and i'm still here all claims sound terrible when it comes to national security but when you look backwards at them which is what i do in my book is the pentagon papers i look back to the facts of what happened in the pentagon papers and nobody home nothing there no damage now security you have to look at these claims with a jaundiced eye because after a period of time you take a look at them and there's no danger as you mentioned the obama administration has prosecuted more allegedly leakers then under the espionage act then all previous administrations combined. do you believe that leakers such as bradley manning should be subject to some discipline yes i do and i would think that if you

national security by publishing classified documents as you know in america you know sometimes first amendment is trumped by national security issues when information is disclosed that could threaten the lives of soldiers on the battlefield or threaten the lives of americans here at home do you believe honestly that chilling or saw a sign should face no consequences whatsoever yes that's right and so why you know the same claims were made about the new york times when the pubs print on papers it was destroying our security it was strong and so forth and so for the first amendment in that case trumped. the claim of the nixon administration now here you've got to ask yourself well what is the first amendment blame. the claim is that the sons can't be punished if in fact there is no clear and present danger to the country and if you look at the stuff that assigns. published i would argue there's no clear and present danger to the country i mean it's been three years whereas the danger i mean you're still here and i'm still here all claims terrible when it comes to national security but when you l

first amendment lawyers and lawyers inside the ap and ceo is well known first amendment lawyer.d so did eric holder. >> i'm not familiar with all that went into the formulation of the subpoena. i was recused from that matter. i'm confident that the people that were involved in the investigation that i've known and many years followed all the appropriate justice department regulations and did things according to doj rules. >> andrea: all right. this first amendment argument seems to have jay carney pretty rattled. they really don't like to be accused of stomping all over the first amendment. that is exactly what they are doing. carney came out president obama is a friend of the first amendment. friend of the first amendment? >> greg: you have seeing searching bobbing and weaving. you look at holder, he is down so far he comes back aed and he is will get the bends. >> andrea: it's a terrible dance contest. not give it a ten. i want to ask, why wouldn't the obama administration go to the associated press if they are concerned with this may story on a foiled. >> why such draconian m

right what you generally keep your first amendment rights in prison i mean there's a lot of prisoners that publish from prison mean. there's prisoners like publishing nazi propaganda anti-abortion publications out of prison the only way that they can legitimately curtail your first amendment rights in prison if it's related to what's called a legitimate pain a logical interest a the safety of the general population or that can stop you if you're trying to you know commit some sort of crime in the outsider or call out hits but none of that is happening here i think basically what they're they're doing is they're throwing them in admin segregation because they don't like a speech now a lot of this case and clued in the sentence seems to be affected by your client's perceived attitude problem for instance he was tweeting from the courtroom he called the judge profanities on the internet he expressed no remorse for what he had done and that was actually the night before he was sentence he actually said to his fans on write it that the next time he was not going to be quote nearly as nice

area obama by contrast ok in the first amendment area but not ok in national security why because obama as first of all pursued six leakers that's the for a spat thing he's done a second bad thing he's done is he pursued a guy who got a leak whose name is james ries and now what am i worried about he's also per suing julian assize i say if he pursues julian assize and says julia sonce is a coconspirator. then he'll be and succeeds he'll be worse than nixon because it's and try to pursue the new york times and its reporters saying they were coconspirators nixon failed so while most succeeds where nixon failed you'll be worse than nixon so in this context you if you julian a songe as the publisher similar to the new york times similar to the guardian and all the other news outlets that then published what julian a songe disclosed through wiki leaks right there saying that it's the same thing if everyone's on the same point it's like if you have a web site yourself and you publish this interview you're a publisher u.s. officials maintain that that julian assange compromised national securi

the supreme court said under the first amendment freedom of association you can't have it. there's an of the here in congress called a disclose act to try to get at the donors of these groups. i was wrong 25 years ago, i've been right for the last two decades. the government should not be trying to intimidate citizens who criticize the government from exercising their first amendment rights. and that's what is at the heart of this and that's what the irs apparently was doing by making it difficult for citizens to get a legitimate tax exempt status. >> i'm saying should these groups if they're that politically involved, and that's what you identified 25 years ago, if they're that politically involved, they shouldn't have tax exempt status. should the tax code be simpler in this arena to eliminate these questions? >> no. i think the citizens groups have a right to organize, express themselves and not have their donor list subject to supervision. it clear now that the reason these donor lists and donors are trying to be revealed is so the federal government can target them and

or nine months that we've been preparing for this lawsuit so what legal team and we file the first amendment fourth amendment case today in the federal district court in richmond and a false imprisonment case so he was arrested for his first amid activities and he was searched in c. . without probable cause the government did not even have a search warrant because they did not have enough evidence to get it there is no evidence him ever owning a gun in fact he doesn't own a weapon so obviously he wasn't dangerous and so i see this case basically as a shot across the bow to in the government before you do this you need to follow the constitution and you need to do your work your homework don't go around the harassing veterans and we'll get to your alonso in just a second as you had mentioned u.s. circuit court judge alan sharratt eg knowledge of the fact that the authorities had broken brandon robb's first fourth fifth and fourteenth amendment rights was there any sort of apology issued. on that fact i had better troops of call me around the country this is happening to other veterans that i'

why is this a trashing of the first amendment?u said, they said that james rosen presented this to the court as a co conspirator. why? that's the only way in which you can invade his e-mail and his other contacts. if you can save the person involved is under criminal investigation, the reason it's a traffic see, there's no chance of that happening. the only possible exception is the pursuit of neal sheehan who nicked the pentagon papers that nixon tried to prosecute and gave up because it wasn't going to succeed. we've never had a case of seeking of information being accused of a crime. so they set it up as if it's going to be accused of a crime. of course, he hasn't, but it was a way to get and invade the e-mail in a way that you can't, if it's just looking into a journalist. of course, we understand that the administration is a huge supporter of the first amendment and the rights of the press. > >> bret: you're saying a will lf reporters and organizations have put out statements in support of rosen and in support of fox. >> i ju

the political fallout political commentator sam sax hi there sam so how i understand it sam the first amendment you know it prohibits government to abridge this freedom of the press and does this action by away from the first amendment you know in terms of government gathering a piece phone records well in general that's what the first amendment is there for but at the same time it's also illegal to leak information to goes against national security that's what that's what the d.o.j. and even a straight is saying what happened here and ever since the story broke the white house has been talking about how they need to strike this balance between a free a free press that's protected under the first amendment and also cracking down on on leaks that my that might harm our national security interests and president obama was very forceful yesterday in saying that this sort of leak could kill americans abroad now the question is what we have to do to is who gets to determine whether or not this leak is is against our national security interests or whether it's a news story that the news should be free

on the front lines with the first amendment. welcome to you. i've got to say, this whole transparency thing with the president is crumbling, isn't it, because first of all -- let's go back two weeks. the whole guantanamo bay issue rumbles on, a place he said he would shut down but didn't. then we have benghazi, where we have apparently 12 corrections in terms of talking points. then we have the irs targeting tea partiers and people who use the word patriot or say they want to improve their country, and now we have this. we have the justice department targeting a.p., the associated press. what do you make of all this? how transparent is this? because it seems to me to be pretty nontransparent. >> look, i don't think the one we learned about today is so much a matter of transparency as a violation or at least a danger to the first amendment, to the notion of civil liberties and the like. some of the others, though, obviously do raise serious questions of candor with the american public. there's just no denying it. >> in terms of th

the code itself was developed by digital first amendment activist or code developed by r. and schwartz the late hour and schwartz he killed himself while under prosecution for releasing files from dumping files in public domain that were previously owned by the mit if i'm not mistaken schwartz worked with others to create this digitally encrypted environment in which. to which information could be enormously inserted yeah i think it will be the most important factor there yeah i guess the idea here was that they would guarantee anonymity to whistleblowers into sources but. the other side of that now is that this is an environment like that may serve to guarantee an immunity to journalists who are facing an absolutely unprecedented threat in the history of american media so certainly we're keeping our eyes on the situation but for now ira thanks very much for bringing sort of like giving us a broader condit context of what autocratic editor thanks now so i have free you support for syria from within israel r t looks at a small border community ready to do whatever it takes

. >> i would just say private use does raise serious first amendment concerns. we think there's a lot of existing law around the invasions of privacy in the state level and to some extent that the federal level, it is potential invasion of privacy under current law, it is peeping tom was, trespass laws and california specific paparrazzi laws so unlike the fourth amendment government contact where we spend a lot of time talking where it is largely unregulated and the committee needs to focus, here there's a fair amount of existing law and it may be appropriate to see how that plays out before we do a lot of legislating in the private use area. >> anyone else? when i learn about the drone is being so small like the size of a bird or whatever, how do you see in the future is that being regulated? what is to stop an individual from getting that without a approval? >> there's already a hobbyist exception for unmanned aircraft, of model aircraft as defined in the legislation. frankly it is a very important to provide exceptions for hobbyists so that a parent who goes

and is a strong defender of the first amendment. he believes strongly in the press to be unfettered in its pursuit of journalism. he also believes strongly as a citizen and as president the need to ensure that classified information is not leaked because it can endanger our national security interests, it can endanger american men and women around the world. but i cannot and he cannot appropriately comment on the specifics of an ongoing criminal investigation for the reasons that you yourself just raised. >> talk about the specifics in this investigation. >> you listed the specifics of the investigation. >> is he concerned at all about the president and that this is the legacy of his attorney general? >> this i think refers to this investigation, so i cannot comment on that. what i can tell you is that the id his arrival in this office when he was a senator and co-sponsor of legislation that would enhance protections for the media and the principles that are behind that effort are ones that he holds to this day, but i can't -- i can

it's called the first amendment. this is great because it really got to drive everybody else in the media crazy because the way the white house looks at fox news is the way they should look at the press. it should be an adversarial relationship and almost as though obama is saying, i really don't respect you enough to fear you. every time he makes light of fox news, it means fox news is doing their job. its dream of the past. it's not attention is not arguing it's about silence. groups of media matters are devoted to silence fox news. goes back to the glorious time in the garden of liberal eden before there was talk radio with all media was liberal. they wanted to go back to that. >> dana: there were 17 democrats and three republicans which to me they didn't do enough work. >> bob: that bill has been sitting around for several years. white house said they would support it and sign it when through. it's more complicated as saying the first amendment because you are dealing with a series of highly complex intelligence

doubtful ttey the first amendment protects oofensive and wrong.for mre detaill isit behind the oofensivend wrong.for mre detaill isit behind the u dflexibility and convenience. so here's a few reasons to choose university of phoenix. our average class size is only 14 students. our financial tools help you make smart choices about how to pay for school. our faculty have, on average, over 16 years of field experiene. we'll help you build a personal career plan. we build programs based on what employers are looking for. our football team, is always undefeated. and leading companies are interested in our graduates. we'll even help you decorate your new office. ok. let's get to work. ccild see tafficking.why the victim of a case thh shocked the nation came to baltimore....on fox 45 news at five. 3 pt's ur "ssin into ssmmer" giveeway. 3 chance to win up tt 550-ddllars. 500-dollars.óóóóóóóóóó you then... we'll spin the whhel e &

tea parties have first amendment rights, too.but your big point is it puts the size of government on display. >> and the climate president obama created. if you look at congress and what the independent counsel said about president reagan during iran ca contra. president obama set the tone from the top down on an approach to government as mitch mcconnell says in today's post. it's a culture of intimidation. any group on the other side of a public policy issue is considered to be illegitimate and somehow dangerous and malignly motivated. i think that's a big part of this scandal. talk about what speaker boehner told greta. he says it's inconceivable the president didn't know about this sooner. he said i deal with my senior staff every day and it's hard to imagine it wouldn't have couple in some conversation. >> i think speaker boehner has a point. it's hard to imagine it didn't come up. but if it didn't come up, that's outrageous, too. that means these guys didn't consider what the irs was doing that big a deal. they are sort of d

question but if there they managed to take away the second amendment and they can take away the first amendment as well which is freedom of speech and they can take away the fourth amendment and no one's talking about them it's a complete media blackout and. you will not be able to stay home brother because the revolution will not be televised people so they are more afraid of the government's off to this attack than terrorists millions of going online and i agree over the military president's. history. in the mainstream networks on to lead a single discussion of troops rifling through homes preparation for new walls and most alluring america this is the truth eco. if. peace peace peace peace peace. peace peace peace peace peace. peace peace. will. hold of him. her mother. let's be. playing. her or her. i wish i was lucky. a bomb missile good luck. just sleep. and i'm. fine i'm a better little. fifth. britain's euro skeptic u.k. independence party makes huge gains in local elections securing over twenty percent of the vote sending a message to a worried governing conservative party. u.s. u.-tur

question but if there they managed to take away the second amendment and they can take away the first amendment as well which is freedom of speech and they can take away the fourth amendment and no one's talking about them it's a complete media blackout and. you will not be able to stay home brother because the revolution will not be televised people so they're more afraid of the government off to this attack than terrorists millions of going online and i agree over the military president's. history. in. the mainstream networks on to lead a single discussion of troops rifling through homes preparation for new walls and most alluring america this is the truth eco. mission free accreditation free. for judges free. free. free. free. download free blog. free. to build a. mission to teach me. this is why you should care only. they all see themselves as dying swans in their dreams. but only one of the cells will ever make it to the. they're ready to give them a chance to die on stage if only once. not even. four generations of the. look look look look look. good steve. leap. sleeve. a little. few. ap

question but if there they managed to take away the second amendment and they can take away the first amendment as well which is freedom of speech and they can take away the fourth amendment and no one's talking about them it's a complete media blackout and. you will not be able to stay home brother because the revolution will not be televised people so they are more afraid of the government so if this attack the terrorists millions of going online and i agree over the military precedent. in the mainstream networks on to lead this thing the discussion of troops rifling through homes preparation for new walls and moshe little room america this is the truth eco. secret lover tour. was able to build the world's most sophisticated robots which fortunately doesn't sound anything tim's mission to teach me the creation of life you care about humans and. this is why you should care only. that. i. speak. a. little. eleven mission free accreditation free in-store charges free colorations free. three stooges free elections free broadcast quality video for your media projects a free meal dog r.t. dot com.

so i think these media show players are terribly flawed and i think we should just uphold the first amendment i mean i was listening to this jay carney fellow the other day talking about how all we support the media's right to do unfettered investigative journalism and we support the first amendment and it sounded like a north korean press conference or something do we do we need to say this in two thousand and thirteen well we do unfortunately in this this and this is something the you know i think really went on steroids right after nine eleven and and has as continued this is bipartisan we have these situations tom in places like britain and canada the judge will have like of worry dear in the course of the trial and no rule on issues like this and then the judge will say but i believe it is in the best interests of the public public good is best served if we forget about this intrusion of somebody's privacy and we're going to allow the evidence the problem is america's got the first amendment and the founding fathers and and the framers of the constitution the people who founded this coun

and is a strong defender of the first amendment. he believes strongly in the need for the press to be unfettered in its pursuit of investigative journalism. he also believes strongly as a citizen and as president in the need to insure the classified information is not leaked. because it can endanger our national security interests. it can endanger the american men and women around the world. but i cannot and he cannot appropriately comment on the specifics of an ongoing criminal investigation for the reasons that you yourself just raised. >> it's not about the specifics of the investigation. >> you listed the specifics of the investigation. >> is he concerned at all about the precedent this is setting and that this is the legacy of his attorney general? >> this, i think refers to this investigation, so i cannot comment on that. what i can tell you saw that pr arrival in this office, when he was a senator and co-sponsored legislation, that would enhance protections for the media, and the principles that are behind that effort, are on

what's your response to the critics who say that this violates the first amendment even though gay conversion may be a bad idea, do we always outlaw things because they're a bad idea? >> well, we outlaw things when they hurt people and certainly as the studies have shown you've indicated gay conversion therapy has the potential to hurt a lot of young kids who already have questions about their sexuality. >> john: i agree. does the legal challenge we're seeing in california make you concerned this bill could get struck down if it passes? >> you know, any bill has that potential. we think there is a lot of solid evidence that it will protect young people. it will protect families. you know, gay and lesbian kids have something like five times

the first amendment and the protection of the first amendment is vitally important. if the american people think that the irs can be used as a tool to silence, to scrutinize groups that are expressing their first amendment rights, that will have a chill on the first amendment that will make this country a place where people are free to express their opinions. >> eric: do we know if any liberal groups were targeted -- you have organizing for america? that's the president's re-election effort. you have organizing for action. are they being investigated now? how about move on dot-org or the center for american progress you? mentioned 300 groups. any of those groups looked at? do we know? >> here's what we do know, of 300, only a quarter had patriot or tea party in their name. we don't know the rest of the three-quarters. i bet you -- i would submit to you that there are probably groups that were on the left that were part of that as well because we know that everybody who was on the right was feeling the heat and was raising cane about this. that was one-quarter of 300.

>> reporter: a statement has been released saying the first amendment is first for a reason, that theadministration is going after reporters' phone records they better have a damned good explanation. it doesn't get more terse than that. as you can see, republicans are unhappy, democrats are not happy as well, from the most liberal to the most conservative. what the president of the associated press is saying that over a two-month period, 20 phone lines in new york, connecticut, washington, even the press room here in the capital, in the house of representatives, they seized records from all of those areas and it was done without telling the a.p. journalists beforehand. apparently some had their home phones and cell phone records taken, seized by the justice department. now, what the a.p.'s president is saying is that what they took provides what he called a road map to the a.p.'s news gathering operations, road map and information that the government simply has absolutely no business having. you might, of course, be wondering what's the justice department's explanation. all they are s

of next's tonight, the abuses first amendment practices of some in the obama administration .hannon green with a live repor about the latest on a fox news correspondent and our colleagues . stay with us. thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: foteaching us that you can't cr. by clinging to the past. and with tt: you're history. instead looking behind... delta loong beyon 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences low... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting hist. we're making it. at bnyellon, our business is investments. managinghem, moving them, making them work. oversee 20% of the world'sfin. and that giv us scale and insight no o else has. investment management combined with investment servicing. bringing the power of investments to pple's lives. invested in the world. bny mellon. ♪ lou: our next guest says it is clear the obama administration as willful blindness to the continuing threat of international terrorism is a major reason for some of the mistakes that were made before, during, and after l

defender of the first amendment. he believes strongly in the need for the press to be unat the time terrified in hits pursuit of journalism. he believes as president in the need to ensure that classified information is not leaked because it can endanger our national security and endanger american men and women around the world. i cannot and he cannot appropriately commented on specifics of an ongoing congressional investigation that you just raised, criminal investigation that you raised. >> was he concerned about this is legacy of his attorney general? >> i can't comment on that. i can tell you that the president absolutely believes in the need to this office and co-sponsor of the legislation that would enhance protections for the media and that our behind that effort be ones like that. i can't take it to a specific case that has been reported to the press. we learn from about the press appropriately. if we learned about it any other way, it would be inappropriate. >> calling on it after the case. >> thank you. >> j

i think we need to do pr for the first amendment. the first amendment is for the democracy. it's a constitutionally protected profession journalism. >> that suggests the government was trying to stop publication. >> that suggested the government is going on a fishing expedition to stop leaks and to intrude on the news gathering process of a lot of reporters who weren't even on this story. >> to play devil's advocate, while it is illegal and half dozen people have been prosecuted for leaking classified information, it is not illegal for journalists to receive it. maybe a fine distinction. so, the government prosecutors say, look, the only way we can find out who did it, is by looking at the journalists. >> part of the problem is after wikileaks and after 9/11, a lot of people, of course, feel the government needs to protect us. i think we need to have a better explanation of how you balance the need for national security and need for newscast. >> president obama came out and said i want to talk about getting a journalist shield law in place, again. a bill out in 2009, it died

government to protect its secret information should not overlap the first amendment . they obviously have a very strong interest in protecting their information and we've always counted on the justice department to balance that interest against the first amendment rights of the reporters and it's that ability to balance it that's been called into question by the events of the last couple weeks we feel that most journalists can make the careful determination of when some confidential information is newsworthy and something that the public has a right to see and they can balance that against the risk of any damage that might be caused by release of it i think most journalists if they knew the information would truly be damaging would be willing to hold back or you know report less of it or accommodate those security interests. the body of an afghan man whose feet had been kind of has been discovered be a former american military base not far from the country's capital kabul as investigators like you say u.s. forces of murdering and torturing at least seventeen people in

the code itself was developed by digital first amendment activists or code developed by orange shorts the late hour and schwartz he killed himself while under prosecution for releasing files from dumping files in public domain that were previously owned by m.i.t. if i'm not mistaken i guess the idea here was that they would guarantee anonymity to whistleblowers into sources but. the other side of that now is that this is an environment like that may serve to guarantee anonymity to journalists who are facing an absolutely unprecedented threat in the history of american media greg p.l.s. three from the report is coming to the full freedom of the present believes that the right of the u.s. government to protect its secret information should not overlap the first amendment they obviously have a very strong interest in protecting their information and we've always counted on the justice department to balance that interest against the first amendment rights of the reporters and it's that ability to balance that that's been called into question by the events of the last couple of weeks we fe

the latest on the justice department assault on the first amendment.ew data showing signs of improvement in housing and jobs. wall street veteran tells us whether the markets are headed for, well, recovery next. it. ♪ welcome to the new buffalo... ere new york state is investing onbillion doars to attract and grow business. where compies ke geico are inveing in technology & finance. welcome to the state where cutting taxes for business... isur business. welcomto the newuffalo. welcome to the n buffalo. lcome to the new buffalo. new york state is throwing out the old rule book to give your business a new edge, the edge you cannly get in new york state. to gw our start your business, visit thenewny.com ♪ [ male announcer ] every car we build must make adrenalineump and pulses quicken. ♪ to help you not just to stay alive... but feel alive. the c-class is no exception. it's a mercedes-be, through and throug see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for ceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial rvices. ♪ lou: trying to get a sense of what is going on

that is its first amendment right. is not covered by the first amendment, is news gathering techniques. those aren't protected. that has been litigated by the supreme court. so the press has to be careful, i think, about getting itself into a gray area where its ability to do its job gets peeled back because court decisions run against it or public opinion runs against it. >> paul: how damaging do you think this story is to the administration going forward, both in a legal sense and political? >> that is the question because it is part of the great picture we have imcompetence and aggression with the irs and everything else and it's very hard to separate the ap story from the rest of it in the aggregate, all of it is this possible blunder bust by accident, but also possible blunder bust by intention. i mean, hot house effect in which this white house has operated, always ends up with we are the virtue with us no matter what happens. you are causing trouble. and it is the arrogance of power. >> paul: okay, dorothy. we'v