Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
from the who's-the-real-enemy-of-the-state? dept
We've noted the unfortunate fact that President Obama has used the espionage act to go after whistleblowers, rather than actual spies. Similarly, we've been quite concerned that people have tried to paint organizations like Wikileaks as being criminal operations or guilty of violating the Espionage Act as well. While there may be many reasons to not like Wikileaks or Julian Assange, that does not mean that they're guilty of criminal activities in publishing classified information they obtain. That's what lots of reporters do.And, in fact, as the EFF is warning, some in Congress are now turning their sights on reporters at the NY Times for daring to publish newsworthy material, dug up through traditional reporting means. In other words, the gradual expansion of the definitions here is putting reporters at risk. Already we expanded the definition of espionage to cover whistleblowers... and now they're trying to expand it to the press who report on the information leaked by whistleblowers.
It's hard not to be offended by the disdain for the Constitution displayed by these politicians. Even if no one actually goes through with a prosecution against a journalist, the chilling effects have already made their mark. Reporters are likely to think twice now about publishing that big scoop, exposing questionable government behavior, because those within the government seem to think that actually revealing troubling facts about the government is akin to being a spy.At a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on July 11th, some members of Congress made it clear they also want New York Times journalists charged under the Espionage Act for their recent stories on President Obama’s ‘Kill List’ and secret US cyberattacks against Iran. During the hearing, House Republicans “pressed legal experts Wednesday on whether it was possible to prosecute reporters for publishing classified information,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
In addition, the Washingtonian’s Shane Harris reported a month ago that a “senior” Justice Department official “made it clear that reporters who talked to sources about classified information were putting themselves at risk of prosecution.”
Leaks big and small have been happening for decades—even centuries—and the most recent are comparable to several others. No journalist has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act and it has generally been accepted, even by Congress's own research arm, that the publication of government secrets by the press is protected speech under the First Amendment. Yet the government is actively investigating WikiLeaks and now threatening others for just that.
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: espionage act, free speech, journalism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
should be "...turning their sights on reporters at the NY Times..."
Other than that, this post really isn't saying anything *new* or even *unbeknownst* to most people.
Our Government is corrupt as any other 'first world' country, with the possible exception of (As you mentioned earlier today) Norway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't that be "turning their sights on reporters"? Unless, of course, you are referring to the Congressional websites...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UW
1. Hardware which is placed under a desk.
2. Hardware which is worn or used below the belt.
Example: Dude, today I totally blew out my underware on that maneuver!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: UW
...
...
what does that example even SAY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of speech is supposed to allow us to talk out about the things we do not like about the Government. That is the very point of it. Now the Government is trying to pretend that if they put a big red classified stamp on something then they can get away with it.
It is time for the people to wake up and realize what is happening. Our government is out of control and trying to run every aspect of our lives. Their methods are simple, they just keep screaming about terrorist or that it is "for the children".
It makes me sick seeing how much freedom has been taken away "for our own good". FUCK THAT. I'm much more afraid of what my own damn government is trying to do that I am of any "terrorist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or actually I should probably warn my neighbors, I mean what am I thinking, they will never actually hit the right house on the first try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> arrested for treason.
Or just simple criminal stupidity. Have these guys never heard of the Pentagon Papers case? Landmark Supreme Court decision upholding the right of the press to publish classified information-- even troop movements during a time of war-- without prosecution. Taught in high schools across the land. (Or at least it used to be. Who the hell knows what they're teaching now? Basic Civics has probably been replaced by Appreciation of Transgendered Diversity or something else equally appalling.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Bother!?!?
(Plus, it would make great news for other journalists to reports on! Kinda like a shark feeding frenzy...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beware Mike, pretty soon reporting about reporters who report about whistleblowrs will also be considered treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks hardly represents a journalism enterprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? What makes a "journalism enterprise" in your mind?
A press pass from the White House?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Assange must be truly desperate to seek sanctuary in Ecuador. It's an ass-backward banana republic with a history of authoritarian rule and censorship. I wonder how long he will last there. If he sets foot out of that country or there is a (likely) regime change, he'll be on a plane to the US pretty quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Never mind the fact that Wikileaks painstakingly goes through all the info they collect and do some filtering of their own before releasing it.
Also, never mind the fact that, before they released some of their latest bundles of data (before they were squeezed out, that is) that they worked directly with some news entities (like The Guardian).
But your rant is good too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But even if your accusation is true, execution, really? You do know that wikileaks didn't even break US law, right? If we're going to have capital punishment, it should at least be restricted to people who commit felonies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is of course that there is a good reason to suspect that far too much information is secret not for good faith national security reasons but for more under handed reasons.
There is not one known incident where the US's national security has been harmed as a result of all those disclosures. A huge volume of information allegedly classified for the US's well being and to secure and protect her, yet nothing bad other than some embarrassment occurs when that huge volume of information is released?
The obvious conclusion is that information that does not risk the US's national security when released is being kept classified for reasons other than the US's national security.
Democracy relies on information. This degree and volume of unnecessary secrets is more of a risk to the national security of a nation that imagines itself a democracy than Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is very different and highly fundamental to journalism.
And to your point about discretion--many journalists would argue that discretion often perverts independence and therefore undermines the objectives of journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I feel that journalists should publish ALL papers they get with NO redaction on them. Redaction just allows people who were involved in various criminal or 'damaging to the image of our country' actions to get off scott-free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just about anything short of information that would threaten lives if published I'd say is fair game though.
So info that is embarrassing to a highly ranked official, up to and including the ruler of a country? Fair game. Info that if released would have a high chance of directly causing needless deaths? Not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Uhh...you mean...like WikiLeaks did. Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes there are differences. Still doesn't explain why what Wikileaks does wouldn't be considered journalism. It seems like you are using the "I know it when I see it" method here.
Revealing classified documents is not the core business model of news organizations; it is incidental to what they do.
I'm not sure what their business model has to to with anything. The AP is a non-profit. Does that mean that they are not a news organization. What about all the news programs on Public Broadcasting and NPR?
And in fact, legitimate news organizations often show some discretion in what classified information they publish by reviewing it, limiting it and sometimes even talking with the affected agency about what they intend to publish and why.
You act like this a good thing. I'm not convinced. Take this example of reporter Steve Wilson, WTVT and Monsanto. It appears that the story was originally killed because of Monsanto and members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries. WTVT did eventually run the story, but only after it was watered down quite a bit. I'm sure there are tons of other examples out there - like ABC (Disney) barely mentioning the SOPA protests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where have you been the last decade or so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You do realise the Wikleaks has been releasing unclassified and non-government info for years, and continues to do so, right?
Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to criticise an organisation you know so little about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right, Pirate Mike? Great FUD piece you wrote here. The government is so scary and mean! OMG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Techdirt is clearly around 50% BLUE and 50% grey-ish (I'm ignoring the background).
Stupid trolls can't even tell the colors apart anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Besides which, they've probably been banned from a load of other sites...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I swear, the guy probably masturbates to this thought every day or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And why call him "Pirate Mike" in an article that has NOTHING to do with copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The US government is currently more contemptuous of its people than afraid of them. Hence its people would be wise to be wary of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Journalists are cumming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a very odd situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a very odd situation
If you acquire some state secrets and publish them, then it's clearly something you wanted everyone to know, and wanted everyone to know was compromised. Why you would do that if you were spying?
But the real problem here is going after journalists for reporting on information others have leaked. That's a pretty serious First Amendment breach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a very odd situation
The person who gives classified info to one reporter (or company/govt/etc...): prosecuted. The reporter who gives it to world+dog: cheered. It's the same information. The only difference is the scope of distribution. Less distribution = more punishment just does not make sense unless their goal is to have no secrets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a very odd situation
And if I were an entity with valuable secrets, I would certainly and without hesitation prefer any of them that were leaked to be leaked to everyone, instead of merely to one or a handful of people who would best exploit them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a very odd situation
look, you guys aren't even funny any more. publish it unredacted - ooooh, wikileaks leaks state secrets, kill it. be discrete and redact before publishing - oooooh, wikileaks has an agenda, it publishes only damaging things. what is it that you want wikileaks to do?
consider the following scenario. let's say you fired someone over being gay, and successfully obtained a gag order over this information, so even talking to anyone about it is a felony. somehow, this information ends up in the public, and now you're in trouble. is it wrong or you got what you deserve?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a very odd situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a very odd situation
I don't understand why that is so hard for people to fathom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a very odd situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a very odd situation
Not quite. There's a very clear difference.
If you gather the data illicitly (wire taps, breaking and entering, etc.), you are a spy and have broken the law. Or, if you have legal access to the information but are under an obligation not to disclose it but you do anyway, you are a spy and have broken the law.
However, if you have received this information without breaking the law or a nondisclosure obligation and you distribute it, you are not spying and have not broken the law, even if someone else did break it to get the information originally.
So, for example, if someone obtains a Top Secret document and gives it to me, I can legally share it as much as I want. I have committed no crime, and have no secrecy obligation. This is the position that newspapers (and WikiLeaks) is in.
The only problem area is if I induce someone else to spy. That is what the WikiLeaks investigation was about -- if the government could show that WikiLeaks conspired with Assange to get him to grab the memos, then WL has a problem. If he just got them and handed them to WL without WL asking him to, then WL is in the clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a very odd situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List
1) Congress lost all perspective when allowing corporations the same rights as people. (they haven't clarified the law to eliminate corporate personhood). I'm still waiting for a draft to see how corporations react to being drafted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: List
Boeing made a killing supplying bombers, and if they didn't offer their services, they would have been in a world of hurt. All commercial aviation development was halted during the war in order to supply bombers, and parts for other planes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: List
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: List
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops, wrong word
Should be "sights"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn in your neighbor to the authorities, but:
I mean, what's a fascist warrior state without symbolism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing New
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If wikileaks found out about plans to stop a terror attack and published them causing the attack to be directed elsewhere resulting in thousands dead... well... doesn't bear thinking about does it?
Journalists have to be responsible for their behaviours just as much as the Govt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wikileaks obtained information that was, at worst, embarrassing to the US Government. There were no US secret agents harmed by the release of the information, despite what others have said (because if there were, we would have heard about it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Aiding an enemy? Whose enemy? Wikileaks isn't an US entity and Assange isn't a US citizen. Now Bradley Manning is in a bit of a different situation.
If wikileaks found out about plans to stop a terror attack and published them causing the attack to be directed elsewhere resulting in thousands dead... well... doesn't bear thinking about does it?
No. Not really. Wikileaks hasn't done anything like that as far as I know. Let's stay focused on actual events and facts, not scary fantasies you are dreaming up.
Journalists have to be responsible for their behaviours just as much as the Govt.
Please explain exactly how Wikileaks has been irresponsible here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But unfortunately a lot of the info Wikileaks has released should not be classified, because it served no national security purpose and was merely embarrassing to those involved. That's not the way classifying of info should be used.
"If you tell an enemy state that classified information either directly or via an open website, that's still espionage and aiding an enemy."
Can you point to any evidence that any of America's enemies have been aided in any substantial or material way by Wikileaks releases? And no, confirming an already low opinion doesn't count.
"If wikileaks found out about plans to stop a terror attack and published them causing the attack to be directed elsewhere resulting in thousands dead... well... doesn't bear thinking about does it?"
You're right, your made-up fantasy doesn't bear thinking about, because it hasn't happened and is not going to happen.
"Journalists have to be responsible for their behaviours just as much as the Govt."
If a journalist has evidence of corporate or governmental misbehaviour that has strong public interest, it is irresponsible for that journalist to not publish it. Governments in particular should always operate under the fear that their actions could one day be made very public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spies for God?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this similar to receiving stolen goods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this similar to receiving stolen goods?
Allowing reporters to report on information they have obtained from others is the core of the First Amendment. The principle is that others dig up information that the government is involved in scandal/scary/illegal actions, the reporter gets this information and then publishes it. Its to help keep the government accountable for its actions. By seeking to prosecute journalists, the government is seeking to scare others into not publishing classified info and thus, keep any illegal actions secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this similar to receiving stolen goods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this similar to receiving stolen goods?
Wikileaks has disclosed this type of information from many Govts around the globe, even exposing very problematic stuff and providing fertile grounds for change in some countries that have/had tyrannical and/or corrupt Governments.
The Government polices us and enforces the law. Who polices the police and enforces the Constitution? Bingo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this similar to receiving stolen goods?
So for intance, we should ignore stuff like corruption, because the information was "obtained" illegally, how convenient and totally ineffective.
What if that corruption reveals certain facts, what if that information puts certain things into perspective, what if that information is the only proof of suspected corruption.....well, i guess its a good thing the law is followed, and the proof declared illegal, because laws are there for a reason, and only a fool would think every single law is not there for our well being, if you question them, then your obviously a delinquent.
/s
What if the very corruption reveals the law against whitleblowers was born out of corruption.
Whoahhhh, mind = blown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the Senate and House are now enemies of the constitution, then let us treat them as such and take those constitutional terrorists out just like we would any other terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This whole 'summary killing' makes my gut roil because it is the same shit that the police got in trouble for back in the 1960's with black men accused of crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks used to describe themselves as an intellgence agency
I noted that back then in this blog post:
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/wiki-for-anti-anti-islamofascists-and-the-pract ice-of-open-source-espionage/
Here is the example still available from the Wayback Machine of the Wikileaks website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070928101508/http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are only doing something illegal if CAUGHT. If you stop anybody ever having the capacity to catch them out on committing illegal acts by making it illegal to catch them out then they (politicians et.al) will never be 'technically' committing illegal acts.
QED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout is apparently Not fair play after all
What's that (insert country here), you really, really don't like it when people can see what it is you're doing behind the scenes?
Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Spies..
but journalists today are all traitors worthy of hanging from the gallows? Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]