Good - as usual. And, just as some walls are more equal than others, people who are guarded 24/7/365 by people with automatic weapons want to ban US Citizens from having semiautomatic firearms.
From a professional experience several decades ago, I learned that the government is forbidden from intentionally misinforming the people through the media - even when it's for their own good, or even if matters of national security are at stake. At the time, I'd found the law - something Congress had passed years previously, perhaps as part of a budget - and it was unequivocal about what the Executive could and could not do, regarding intentional misleading of the public. I can't lay my finger on it now, search engines having declined to the point of uselessness, but it exists. No, they cannot plant false stories in the media, or promote false stories or use the media to quash inconvenient facts. This isn't China or Russia we're living in.
I think you may have laid finger on it. Smith-Mundt sounds like the law that was cited by the general counsel in the situation I was involved with. It was "the spirit" of the law that was at stake, not the particulars involving VOA or propaganda in general. It was that there was (is?) a bright red line that Executive agencies cannot cross. And it doesn't matter the rationalization or justification - they can't go there. Or at least they couldn't. But see how it goes: once the camel gets a nose under the tent, anything goes.
Good - as usual. And, just as some walls are more equal than others, people who are guarded 24/7/365 by people with automatic weapons want to ban US Citizens from having semiautomatic firearms.
I wonder what they'd do with all the guns they'd want to confiscate? Afghan warlords or Mexican drug cartels?
From a professional experience several decades ago, I learned that the government is forbidden from intentionally misinforming the people through the media - even when it's for their own good, or even if matters of national security are at stake. At the time, I'd found the law - something Congress had passed years previously, perhaps as part of a budget - and it was unequivocal about what the Executive could and could not do, regarding intentional misleading of the public. I can't lay my finger on it now, search engines having declined to the point of uselessness, but it exists. No, they cannot plant false stories in the media, or promote false stories or use the media to quash inconvenient facts. This isn't China or Russia we're living in.
That's interesting, and I'd love to find that cite as well. I'll do my own digging.
Here's what I found, and it's not good news.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act
I think you may have laid finger on it. Smith-Mundt sounds like the law that was cited by the general counsel in the situation I was involved with. It was "the spirit" of the law that was at stake, not the particulars involving VOA or propaganda in general. It was that there was (is?) a bright red line that Executive agencies cannot cross. And it doesn't matter the rationalization or justification - they can't go there. Or at least they couldn't. But see how it goes: once the camel gets a nose under the tent, anything goes.
HEAR! HEAR!