> So the government can somehow hack into the NYTimes editing process and put a retraction of some earlier claim into the newspaper, all without the NYTimes staff cooperating?
Can you come up with a concrete example of how such a court order might come about in a case that the government is intervening in in this manner?
> Similarly, if A is constantly harassing B, B should just shut up and take the money the government pays him in compensation, along with the harassment that isn't being stopped?
See above.
> Are you sure that is the outcome you are advocating for?
It's difficult to know, since these seem to have no relationship to any hypothetical case I can come up with.
No, I don't want the government to get involved. I hold the (probably far more radical position than you) that government is not entitled to secrets at all, and that all government employees should be live-streaming their activities to the public Internet at all times while on duty.
I was presenting an alternative on the assumption the government would anyway.
> We're not talking about secrets and government employees!
Actually, that is the core premise of the conversation I am having.
You probably have a reasonable point, but I'm disinclined to discuss it if we're not actually having the same conversation. All the more so since you have made a false accusation about my desires.
Can you come up with a concrete example of how such a court order might come about in a case that the government is intervening in in this manner?
> Similarly, if A is constantly harassing B, B should just shut up and take the money the government pays him in compensation, along with the harassment that isn't being stopped?
See above.
> Are you sure that is the outcome you are advocating for?
It's difficult to know, since these seem to have no relationship to any hypothetical case I can come up with.