The AIPAC spy case: It’s a First Amendment issue

I’ve been disturbed about the AIPAC spy case since the beginning. And the more I read about it, the more disturbed I get.

Gary Farber has an extensive analysis of why I should be even more worried about this case. He says it’s a First Amendment case, and that if the government wins, then regular reporters will be arrested for receiving classified information.

The case is drawing the attention of First Amendment attorneys because both Ellis and prosecutors have noted that the two lobbyists — in receiving and disseminating the information — are doing what journalists, academics and experts at think tanks do every day.

Floyd Abrams, a New York attorney who has represented the New York Times in a variety of high-profile cases, said in an interview this week that the AIPAC case “is the single most dangerous case for free speech and free press.” Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, wrote on his Web site this week: “Anything other than a dismissal of the charges would mark a dramatic shift in national security law and a significant reduction in First Amendment protections.”

Attorneys for the AIPAC lobbyists argue that First Amendment protections bear on the case because their clients were exercising their free speech rights.

There’s much more over at Gary’s.

But we’ve never before convicted people of a crime for receiving classified material. That’s a whole ‘nother ball game.

The staff of the New York Times who reported on the NSA “Program,” including James Risen? Jail time.

Seymour Hersh? Jail time.

Pincus at the Post? Jail time.

And every other reporter, forever more.

Go read it all.