In a letter to President Obama and Attorney General Holder, nineteen twenty faculty members of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism warned against the “dangerous precedent” that a prosecution of WikiLeaks would establish. They wrote that whatever one thinks about WikiLeaks’s methods or motives, the organization is “engaging in journalistic activity” by publishing the State Department cables, and therefore entitled to First Amendment protection.
Prosecuting the WikiLeaks staff would be detrimental not only to press freedom, they argue, but to the reputation of the United States. The complete letter is available here, but here is an excerpt:
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.
It's not clear to me what journalistic activity WiliLeaks engaged in. Did they verify anything? Question anyone? Gather corroborating or opposing information? Send reporters anywhere? Did
They do follow-ups? What fact-checking did WikiLeaks do? Is an informant the same thing as a journalist? Is a hacker the same thing as a journalist?
#1 Posted by Cecil Hickman, CJR on Tue 14 Dec 2010 at 04:46 PM
I don't recall the Constitution including a standard for what constitutes journalism, Cecil. Passing out handbills in the town square is about as far as the framers probably were thinking.
#2 Posted by Chris, CJR on Tue 14 Dec 2010 at 05:03 PM
An informant captures information. A journalist publishes it. Wikileaks was handed information by someone who had captured it (Manning) and wikileaks published parts of it after trying to corroborate with the US government.
Leaking information is a crime. Publishing it after the leak is not. Novak did not go to jail after publishing Plame's CIA status because he did not commit the crime. Likewise, wikileaks published information - they did not commit a crime.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Dec 2010 at 07:03 PM
Wikileaks reminds me of a famous German resistance movement: The White Rose (German: die Weiße Rose). We do not want a fascist state run by corporations engaging in wars of profit (oil wars) at the expense innocent civilians and US soldiers. That's the great context which should serve as a reference point when judging wikileaks. It is all about the ever changing demands of freedom, which should be addressed as civilizations evolve. It's about a group of financiers and corporates that bankrupted the world in order to become extremely rich. It's about bringing balance and putting those ultra rich persons that committed crimes of war, and grand theft using the stock markets and financial instruments as tools of war. It is a cablegate telling on all the evil Nixons of the 21st Century!
#4 Posted by Juan Eduardo Alvear, CJR on Wed 15 Dec 2010 at 02:11 AM
Let me see if I have this straight: an Australian citizen operating an organization in Sweden jailed in Great Britain is covered by the first Amendment to the United State constitution?
Interesting to see John Dinges name on the petition. I do recall that a few decades ago he had a very different take people who published leaked material when it concerned the outing of a Cuban agent (Orlando Letelier) who was well connected to a cadre of well know liberals, including Dinges I might add. I guess it just depends on whose ox is getting gored.
#5 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 15 Dec 2010 at 09:44 AM
THANK YOU, Columbia J-school !
#6 Posted by Tania Haldar Hart, CJR on Thu 16 Dec 2010 at 01:04 PM
A number of german newspapers yesterday published the following appeal against the criminalization of Wikileaks: http://bewegung.taz.de/aktionen/4wikileaks/beschreibung - we, the journalists association netzwerk recherche, support the appeal.
#7 Posted by Günter Bartsch, netzwerk recherche, CJR on Fri 17 Dec 2010 at 02:07 AM
If you buy a watch in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, you still maintain clear title to that watch. However, if you know the watch is stolen, and you buy it anyway, then the original owner can reclaim it, and title doesn't pass to you.
In the case of Wikileaks, their whole business is about publishing stolen information. That's what a leak is. They knew this information was stolen, and they published it anyway. And so, they should be liable for damages.
#8 Posted by Jason, CJR on Sat 1 Jan 2011 at 12:18 AM
Cecil,
There was no need for Wikileaks to verify anything. The United States government admits that the cables are genuine.
Jason,
The information wasn't stolen. The United States government still has the original copy. The material was released by someone in the employ of the United States government. It's their problem if they fail to safeguard their own material, not Wikileaks.
#9 Posted by Gizmo, CJR on Tue 4 Jan 2011 at 02:57 PM