The First Amendment Doesn't Care If Wikileaks Is A Media Organization

from the either-way... dept

One of the big debates over Wikileaks in the last few months was whether or not Wikileaks really was a media organization. Of course, as some people are finally realizing: it doesn't matter. The First Amendment should protect the organization no matter what kind of organization it is:

That's one argument in an article that appeared Wednesday in the Harvard Law and Policy Review by Jonathan Peters, a lawyer and research fellow at the Missouri School of Journalism. The First Amendment, Peters argues, protects both free speech and freedom of the press, and neither of those protections is any more or less powerful in protecting an organization that publishes classified documents. The amendment, after all, reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, nor of the press," and doesn't make a distinction between the level of protection on either one of those two clauses.

"The First Amendment does not belong to the press," Peters writes. "It protects the expressive rights of all speakers, sometimes on the basis of the Speech Clause and sometimes on the basis of the Press Clause. To argue that the First Amendment would protect Assange and WikiLeaks only if they are part of the press is to assume (1) that the Speech Clause would not protect them, and (2) that there is a major difference between the Speech and Press Clauses."

This seems like an important reminder for those still arguing over how to classify Wikileaks.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, media, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Over 250 Top US Legal Scholars Condemn The Treatment Of Bradley Manning

from the moral-high-ground dept

For a while now, we've been quite concerned over the US's treatment of Bradley Manning, the guy who has been accused of being the source for many of Wikileaks' biggest leaks from the US government. Under most standard definitions of torture, it certainly appeared that Manning was being tortured. With the UN investigating, and even Obama administration officials who had long been propagandizing against Wikileaks claiming that the treatment was bad (leading to him being fired), it appears more and more people are recognizing how indefensible the treatment is.

The latest is that a who's who of US legal scholars, including the guy who taught President Obama constitutional law (and was a big supporter of Obama during the campaign), have written an open letter condemning the treatment of Bradley Manning as being unconstitutional. That law professor, Laurence Tribe, had actually been a legal advisor to the Justice Department until recently. The original letter was written by Bruce Ackerman and Yochai Benkler, and the list of signatories is pretty impressive.

When you have so many experts in constitutional law speaking up for the way President Obama is treating Manning, can Obama really ignore them completely?

Filed Under: bradley manning, torture, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Feds Say It Doesn't Matter If No One Reads A Privacy Policy; It Still Means Gov't Can Have Your Info

from the reading-is-not-fundamental dept

In the ongoing attempt by the US government to access Twitter info from some Wikileaks supporters, we noted that an odd part of the government's reasoning for why it should be allowed access to this info is that Twitter's privacy policy is evidence that users are willing to give up private info such as the info requested. That would seem to set a dangerous precedent, especially since almost no one reads privacy policies. The fact that such a privacy policy actually may apply beyond just the agreement between a service provider and a user, but to the government reaching in to access your info seems quite troubling.

In defending these claims, the government is going so far as to say it doesn't matter if no one reads privacy policies, it still means that people have willingly allowed the government to access their info in this case.

In their brief the U.S. attorneys attack an argument from Appelbaum, Jonsdottir and Gonggrjip's team that they shouldn't be held to Twitter's privacy policy--which allows authorities to lift data like users' IP addresses--because it's unreasonable to assume that users have read it or any other of the dense policies they face on commonly used sites.

"The existence of the Privacy Policy, even if unread by the Subscribers, undermines the legitimacy of any expectation of privacy the Subscribers may have had in the IP addresses they conveyed to Twitter," reads the brief. "Although individual users might be ignorant of the terms of Twitter's Privacy Policy, society is not prepared to recognize as reasonable an expectation of privacy that is directly contradicted by policy statements available to all who wish to read them."

But, of course, that seems to raise some other serious questions. The "privacy policy" is basically an agreement between the user and Twitter, not the user and the US government. Should the US government really be able to use the terms of such an agreement when it's likely that most people would not have considered the government a party to the agreement in the first place? And, does the government really want to establish a precedent that a policy applies even if no one has read it?

Filed Under: privacy, privacy policies, wikileaks
Companies: twitter, wikileaks

Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery

from the but-it's-all-useless,-right? dept

While plenty of attention late last week was focused (reasonably) on the goings on in Libya and Japan, there was a Wikileaks story that also was important. As Slashdot notes, a recent Wikileaks cable leak reveals claims of rampant bribery in the Indian parliament, specifically with regards to a controversial nuclear deal with the US. The report, from a State Department official, involves him reporting that he was shown "chests of cash" potentially representing $25 million, which was going to be used to pay off members of Parliament to vote for the deal. Of course, the response has been a whole lot of denial, so it should be interesting to watch what comes next. However, given how often we hear that the Wikileaks documents weren't any kind of whistleblowing or hadn't revealed anything major, I'm curious how people can still claim that, given this latest leak.

Filed Under: bribery, corruption, india, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

State Department Spokesperson Says Bradley Manning Is Being Mistreated

from the they-just-noticed? dept

We've written a few times about how we believe Bradley Manning's treatment in prison is horrifying. It goes beyond what's reasonable, and in recent weeks has only gotten worse, as he's now being stripped naked every night.

However Glenn Greenwald points us to the very surprising news that State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley has now come out to say that he believes Manning is being "mistreated" in prison. This is a huge surprise. After all, the State Department has taken the brunt of the leaks that Manning is accused of facilitating. And Crowley has been the State Department's go to guy for massively exaggerating the leak's impact on world affairs. For him to come out and say that Manning is being mistreated is a huge surprise. I'm curious if the folks in our comments who were vocally defending the treatment of Manning as perfectly normal are still willing to defend it, when even one of their biggest allies is backing down.

Filed Under: bradley manning, pj crowley, treatment, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?

from the questions,-questions dept

Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who is apparently advising Julian Assange, is complaining that comments by former President George W. Bush, in refusing to appear with Assange at a Young Presidents Organization event, serves to prejudice the legal process against Assange. Bush stated that Assange "has willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States." This is a statement that has not been proven in court -- and which many might question. However, Dershowitz points out that in saying them, it may serve to unfairly tip the scales of any case against Assange. To be honest, I'm not sure that Bush's comments will really have that much weight here. We've already seen tons of politicians make similar claims. It's clear: US politicians, for the most part, are not fans of Assange. But is that really going to change anyone's opinion of Assange and/or Wikileaks?

Filed Under: george bush, julian assange, prejudice, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty

from the going-a-bit-far? dept

After being unable to convince Bradley Manning to lie about his "relationship" with Julian Assange, the government has decided to up the pressure on Manning by filing another 22 charges against him, including putting him at risk of facing the death penalty -- though, they insist that they will not ask for the death penalty. In the end, however, it is up to the judge, so whether or not the feds ask for it, he is still technically facing the death penalty. In addition, the new charges could put him in jail for life.

Some of the charges seem like clear exaggerations. Government officials have already admitted that the State Department cable leaks have done little to actually damage US diplomatic relationships or put anyone in danger. Yet, the charges certainly suggest both things are true. There's a charge for "aiding the enemy," charges for "theft of public property," the inevitable (but highly questionable) "computer fraud" charges and (of course) Espionage Act charges. It'll take some time before the reasonings behind all of the charges are understood, but the point is pretty clear: the feds don't want any more whistleblowers, so they're throwing the book at Manning as a warning shot to anyone else who wants to expose government misdeeds.

Filed Under: bradley manning, death penalty, espionage, whistleblowing, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support

from the going-into-evil-territory dept

It's old news by this point that PayPal decided to cut off Wikileaks donations, following pressure from members of the US government (even if the State Department denies any official pressure, Joe Lieberman's public brow beating of companies shows that there was serious pressure at least from some in the government). However, Glyn Moody now points us to the news that PayPal has also decided to cut off the group "Courage to Resist," which was handling funds for Bradley Manning's defense effort. PayPal admits there's no legal basis for this. Apparently, the company just doesn't believe that some people should be allowed a fair trial:

The online payment provider PayPal has frozen the account of Courage to Resist, which in collaboration with the Bradley Manning Support Network is currently raising funds in support of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. PayPal was one way people--especially international residents--were able to contribute to the grassroots effort supporting the accused WikiLeaks whistleblower. "We've been in discussions with PayPal for weeks, and by their own admission there’s no legal obligation for them to close down our account," noted Loraine Reitman of the Bradley Manning Support Network (Support Network). "This was an internal policy decision by PayPal."

[....] The Support Network repeatedly requested and was refused formal documentation from PayPal describing their policies in this matter.

The report also notes that they've had a PayPal account in good standing since 2006, with no problems at all. It's only once they were taking funds for Bradley Manning that PayPal shut them down. This is somewhat horrifying, frankly, and raises serious questions about PayPal as a business worth trusting.

Filed Under: bradley manning, funding, wikileaks
Companies: paypal, wikileaks

Investigators Still Can't Find Any Evidence To Link Assange & Manning; DoD Insists It Must Be True

from the that's-called-denial-folks dept

Last month, there were already reports that the Justice Department was having trouble linking Bradley Manning to Julian Assange -- a key piece necessary to charge Assange with any sort of crime. US investigators have known for a long time that if they can't get such evidence, they don't have much of a case. Back in December, it was reported that they had even offered Manning a plea deal if he would just implicate Assange. The only problem: it appears he's not willing to do so, and there's no other evidence. In fact, all the evidence suggests what everyone said from the beginning: Manning decided to take whatever documents he took himself, and whoever uploaded it to Wikileaks (and it's still not confirmed that it was Manning, though he's obviously the most likely) did so of their own free will, not because of pressure from Assange.

The latest reports (via Julian Sanchez) suggest more of the same. The Justice Department is trying really, really hard to link the two, but seems to be quietly admitting that there may be no "there" there, and because of that, there may be no case. What's really stunning however, is that despite all of this work to try to find a simple link, and the lack of any evidence of that link, the Defense Department is still insisting that the link is there and that Assange must be charged.

I find this pretty interesting. I'm assuming the view of DoD officials is clouded by the fact that Manning, by being in the armed services, was a part of the DoD and that they can't accept the idea that he might honestly believe there were wrongdoings that needed to be exposed. They insist that Assange must have preyed on him and pushed and cajoled him into sharing the info. Of course, now the big question is what will the government do. Without this link, there's no case against Assange. So either they try some other, exceptionally weak claim. Or... the give up. They should know what the right option is, but somehow I doubt they'll choose wisely.

Filed Under: bradley manning, defense department, julian assange, justice department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Firm Involved In Planning Attack On Journalist Glenn Greenwald To Hurt Wikileaks Apologizes; Cuts Ties With HBGary Federal

from the fallout dept

Yesterday we had the news of how HBGary Federal -- the firm whose CEO claimed he had "infiltrated" the non-group's leadership and identified who ran the non-group (which doesn't actually have "leaders" in the traditional sense) -- had been exposed for planning a propaganda attack on Wikileaks at the request of some lawyers working with Bank of America (and, it turns out, recommended by the Justice Department). Part of the strategy was to somehow put a tremendous amount of pressure on Salon writer Glenn Greenwald to stop his support of Wikileaks. Exactly how that was to work was not entirely explained.

However, the Tech Herald, which broke the original story, has now spoken with the CEO of Palantir Technologies, one of the two other companies that HBGary Federal had teamed up with in this proposal. Dr. Alex Karp, who is both the co-founder and CEO of Palantir, seems to be genuinely sorry about the whole ordeal, saying he told his firm to cut all ties with HBGary Federal, and issuing an apology to Greenwald.

"The right to free speech and the right to privacy are critical to a flourishing democracy. From its inception, Palantir Technologies has supported these ideals and demonstrated a commitment to building software that protects privacy and civil liberties. Furthermore, personally and on behalf of the entire company, I want to publicly apologize to progressive organizations in general, and Mr. Greenwald in particular, for any involvement that we may have had in these matters."

Meanwhile, HBGary Federal apparently remains pretty quiet...

Filed Under: apologies, glenn greenwald, wikileaks
Companies: hbgary federal, palantir technologies, wikileaks