Has any legal case ever established that "freedom of the press" extends to the publication of information knowingly acquired by illegal means (classified information)?

Are conservatives suddenly fans of Julian Assange?

Again, I wonder about the modern habit of considering the 1st Amendment only a clause at a time, as if each is independent of the others. By my reading, the Constitution recognizes no rights for reporters which are not shared by all citizens.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am not suggesting there is nothing disturbing about recent events.

KC's larger point could have been made without reference to the recent scandals. The corruption is bone-deep.

My nephews and nieces learned to manage smartphones, iPads and whatnot before they were 2 years old. I have mixed feelings about it. But their parents do send them outside, encourage them to socialize face-to-face, and give them chores. Only the last must be forced.

The difference between old Playboys and modern internet porn is the difference between a boxing match and gladiators being mauled by lions. Kids who search for erotica will inevitably be redirected brutal and grotesque vulgarities.

If only I had known all I needed to remain employed for a year or two was a theory and a tree stump!

It sounds like y'all are trying to apply the axiom that, "History repeats itself, but not in the exact same way" with much difficulty in the latter part of that axiom. We've seen it all before, but not all together before... and now there are a few new twists. Is that right? Which elements (or cominbations thereof) are old and which are new?

Y'all might also consider that history is driven by events. Whatever theories anyone makes about how all we are experiencing now fits together, there might be a few more historical bumps in the road which we have yet to encounter. For example, another war or our politicians finding another way to undermine the trust of our creditors.

Speaking of the Founder's relevance, does anyone believe they would have put up with the legal farce that is Obamacare?

The way in which Obamacare was passed violated no law. It did, however, violate the essential principle of democratic government: consent of the governed. We the people do not authorize our legislators to pass legislation without even knowing what it is. The Founders did not write that into the Constitution because they never dreamed something so obvious would need to be spelled out in law.

Refuse to submit that new Obamacare form next year with your taxes. Do not count on legislators to address a pre-legal issue.

Don't worry. Republicans will demand consequences after a year or two of hearings. President Obama will be toothless by then, surely.

Agreed.

Obama's smart enough to know that they will go along with anything if they believe they are in the club of rulers. But is he prudent enough and humble enough to feign interest in them?

Exactly, Merina. Affluence fills our lives with distractions from challenges, responsibilities and even our own consciences.

Lust is an exceptionally powerful distraction.

This is one of those titles that sets me on a tumble of alliteration: Nipples in New York, Biceps in Brussels, Tails in Tazmania, Abs of Abu Dhabi...

Would this be a good time to remind everyone that everything's bigger in Texas?

At least FOX execs are not planning 24 episodes and airing only 8 or 10 before canceling, as they did with Firefly and Drive.

I watched 24 via Netflix back before the days of streaming. I couldn't imagine watching that show in particular only 1 episode per week.

I'm not sure I will watch another season of 24. It strains believability that Bauer still has his job after all that. Besides, if I want to hear someone yell for hours on end, there must be an Al Pacino film I haven't seen yet.

I'm having trouble identifying why this has surprised me.

I've been saying for years that Obama and his ilk are restrained only by power, rather than by principles. They will use whatever power is available to them, seize more power when consequences are not forthcoming, and they have exhibited no moral regard for their opponents. I have also said repeatedly that Obama's actions would become more flagrant as they became more audacious.

Perhaps I am surprised at the lack of resistance.... that we have come this far without any significant resistance from Republican politicians or civilian groups.

Williamson's seizure of the phone was short-sighted, even if he had not broken it. The woman was very likely to become furious and to cause a scene, thereby furthering the distraction to fellow movie-goers. Taking the phone did not help anyone.

If fellow movie-goers in general and theater management could be counted on to support spontaneous and informal sanctions, then actions like this might be reasonable at times. But our culture has already degraded to a point that customers cannot expect business owners to issue, let alone enforce, demands of respectful behavior... for both legal and non-legal reasons.

That said, we won't escape the status quo and restore old standards of neighborly respect by only talking about it.

No system can eliminate the need for individual judgments. We will always rely on the wisdom and good nature of individuals.

Teach your children to be patient and merciful. But also teach them to be strong and just.

Law and order does not completely erase the need for vigilantism. Modern generations have been trained to believe that vigilantism is always wrong. Question that assumption.

Likewise, the need for physical intercession (by civilians, and not police alone) can never be eliminated. Words only appeal to reason, and human beings are often unreasonable. Furthermore, fear of immediate and visible consequences (pain) is more compelling than fear of eventual, possible consequences (law).

Physical restraint is generally preferrable to violence. But physical pain is not the worst thing in the world. Even the greatest pains quickly become only the vaguest of memories. There are many ways to restrain somewhat and cause discomfort without injuring the person.

What a sissy nation we have become! Do you think life is a kindergarten playground in which crying for Teacher is always the best option?

Government participates in justice. It is not the Alpha and Omega of protection, deterrence and recompense.

So is science. So are philosophy and theology. So are literature and art. There are many paths to truth and beauty. History is a pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of truth.

We should not make the mistake of confusing quality with definition. There are bad and mediocre works of art. Some things which are called art should not be, but the problem is that they are not art rather than that they are bad art.

Likewise, there are many poor and mediocre histories, but they are yet histories. Their deficiencies might be factual errors. The shortcomings might also be mistaken associations, mistaken emphasis, ambiguous language, or refusal to mention (with qualification) possibilities which cannot be verified but for which some evidence exists.

Creativity and "speaking finely" can certainly overwhelm the information within a history. But a history can also be relegated to the dusty shelves of academia by overly dry writing. Is history for everyone or only for a select few who aspire to be a society's decision-makers? A good historian speaks to non-factual truths (as expressed in drama, humor, affections) while clearly identifying what is certain and not.