NY Times Editor Says He's 'Alarmed' By The Idea That The US Might Try To Prosecute Wikileaks
from the took-them-long-enough dept
One of the more frustrating things about the press's reaction to Wikileaks was that so many of them tried to shy away from the fact that the same laws that protected them as journalists almost certainly protected Wikileaks as well -- and any legal attack on the organization or someone like Julian Assange could come back to haunt the journalists themselves. So it's nice to see NY Times executive editor Bill Keller (who has detailed his contentious relationship with Wikileaks and Assange) finally come out and say that he would be alarmed by any legal action taken against Wikileaks:"It's very hard to conceive of a prosecution of Julian Assange that wouldn't stretch the law in a way that would be applicable to us," said Keller. "Whatever one thinks of Julian Assange, certainly American journalists, and other journalists, should feel a sense of alarm at any legal action that tends to punish Assange for doing essentially what journalists do. That is to say, any use of the law to criminalize the publication of secrets."The panel, where this was being discussed, also included former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith (now a Harvard Law Professor) who has spoken out in the past saying that he believes Wikileaks is legal. He noted that any lawsuit would be very difficult to pull off. He still thinks the administration will try to bring a lawsuit, but he expects that it will eventually fail in the courts. I'm still hopeful that the administration recognizes the likelihood of failure in any lawsuit and recognizes the dreadful legacy it will leave in suing an organization for publishing leaks.
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: bill keller, free speech, journalism, ny times, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Online news site could also publish leaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online news site could also publish leaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo
FTFY :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo
Because it's not a word. Fixed now. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question ....
I need my fix!!! Give me a serious financial scandal. Or start impeachment proceedings against the president for the violating the constitution for the HomeSec-ICE thing or any of the other violations of the constitution. He did swear an oath to uphold the constitution you know.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
/RANT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question ....
Wow seriously? So only Democrat presidents should be impeached? Because the Chimp sure as HELL should have been impeached if Obama should be, since he violated the constitution just as badly. But no, we ignore all of Bushy-boys errors and just make sure to get those damn Liberals!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the administration pushes too hard, the people in the US might get all "Egypt" on their ass. Fix joblessness not Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is a journalist not a journalist?
We are fast approaching, (if we don't already live in), an age in which paper qualifications and convoluted notions of 'expertise' are being abandoned in favor of a demonstrated ability to do the job. It's time for 'qualified experts' in all fields to recognize this and either get with the program or be left behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is a journalist not a journalist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is a journalist not a journalist?
His actions border on being a blackmailer as well, "process our payments or I will release things about your financial institution" sort of thing.
Mr Keller's alarm is misplaced. Perhaps it reflects his relationship with Assange.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When is a journalist not a journalist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry governments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things
2) Assanage is a Journalist just as much as Bernstein and Woodward. He took documents which anyone with basic common sense would have known were being leaked illegally, implicating both the current and previous administration in doing rather embarrassing stuff, and I'm referring of course to either Woodward or Bernstein (whichever one met Deep Throat in the parking garage). The idea that Assanege is somehow a terrorist, but that the Watergate reporters are great journalists is laughable. Either they're all 3 terrorists or they're all three journalists and champions of free speech in its most apparent and raw form. You cannot have it both ways, folks. Freedom is great when it helps you, and it's awful and even painful when it doesn't, but the reason we choose freedom over totalitarianism is simple - it's good more often than it's bad. In the words of Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." If you can't handle your neighbors burning a flag in their front yard, then you have no right to fly one in your own yard. If you don't like what someone else is saying, you have every right to shout louder, but don't silence them. If you want to pray to your god, that's fine, I'll go observe my molecule. Freedom isn't about limiting options, it's about expanding them beyond limit, and about the realization in each and every one of us that if we silence their voice today, we'll wind up mute tomorrow. So no, leave Assanege alone. You may not agree with what he's doing, or even with how he's doing it, but if you don't believe he has a right to do it at all, then you shouldn't expect to have a right to complain about it tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]