Columbia Journalism School Staff Warns Obama That Prosecuting Wikileaks Will 'Set A Dangerous Precedent'
from the heed-the-warning dept
While it's been unfortunate watching the traditional press attack Wikileaks for doing the job it refused to do itself, it's nice to see the staff of Columbia's journalism school (still considered one of the top journalism schools) come out and warn the Obama administration that prosecuting Wikileaks will set a dangerous precedent for freedom of the press, even for those who disagree with Wikileaks' methods:While we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks' methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment. Any prosecution of Wikileaks' staff for receiving, possessing or publishing classified materials will set a dangerous precedent for reporters in any publication or medium, potentially chilling investigative journalism and other First Amendment-protected activity.Seems to more or less summarize the position we've taken over the last few weeks as well...
As a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.
The U.S. and the First Amendment continue to set a world standard for freedom of the press, encouraging journalists in many nations to take significant risks on behalf of transparency. Prosecution in the Wikileaks case would greatly damage American standing in free-press debates worldwide and would dishearten those journalists looking to this nation for inspiration.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, journalism, obama, professors, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm surprised to see Canada directly below the US, but as with education and social security, the northern European countries are leading the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hate speech is illegal.
Police in Ontario (mostly) and Quebec (sometimes), smash equipment and threaten journalists who show up at embarrassing moments, like the G20 riots.
Should I go on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We say that hate speech is illegal..... but the prosecutors are way too unwilling to prosecute people for hate speech violations, unless it is against black people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think press freedom means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
New Rules: America Isn't # 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcz_NHAFGS0
(NSFW language towards end)
"Coasting on the achievements of our ancestors" is a phrase that I think describes things beautifully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How about this explanation for Mr. Assange's appearance! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, our press can't be free when it has an agenda. Figure that out.
James Carmichael, what you say about Fox I have been saying for years about MSN, CNN, etc. etc. Just because someone doesn't share your point of view doesn't make them wrong. Oh, and Jimmy Carter was a terrible president and is a terrible human being. And I don't need FOX to tell me that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To Fred... shut up. The real issue is that liberals do not CARE if we are number one if we are breaking moral rules. THAT is the only 'shortcoming' that we impose on the United States.
That isn't even a shortcoming except in the minds of people who have been brainwashed with American exceptionalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I grew up in the US and I live overseas. I also love to travel. When you do that, it's easy to see the shortcomings of the US. Many countries will miss the American Empire but schadenfreude will be thick enough to cut it with a knife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And why exactly would the US government consider this a bad thing? Did anyone stop to think that maybe they want to put a scare into journalists and make them afraid to publish leaked documents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure you're right about this: the lesser individuals in government -- of which there are many -- are scared to death by Wikileaks et.al. Oh, they hide it with bluster and cries of "treason!" but they're frightened right out of their inferior little minds. They have finally been confronted with the future and they have no idea what to do about it. Which is why we see them flailing helplessly -- Exhibit A, the Air Force futilely trying to firewall out the truth, as if something so pervasive could be kept out indefinitely.
So sure, it's more than plausible that some of this is intentionally calculated for just that purpose.
It won't work.
There are now more mirrors of Wikileaks than ever -- and the next move against them will provoke still more. Similar sites are being set up as fast as their operators can assemble them. Better methods for concealing leakers' identities are being developed. Lessons are being learned from this saga and applied -- subsequent efforts will evolve and be more progressively more resistant to interference. Yes, governments and corporations will try to stop them -- and in some cases, they'll succeed. But they'll never get them all. And each time they succeed all that they'll really accomplish is exerting a little evolutionary pressure on the rest -- which will respond by making themselves that much harder to stop.
The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
posting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fight Over Wikileaks and the Freedom of the Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WikiLeaks defines Freedom of the Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]