The release by WikiLeaks of some 250,000 previously confidential diplomatic cables has raised new questions about First Amendment protection for WikiLeaks, and for those media outlets that publish information they obtain from WikiLeaks, or other similar sources.
The Department of Justice is investigating WikiLeaks' publication of sensitive documents, and federal officials told The Washington Post they are considering criminal charges under the Espionage Act for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
U.S. media outlets took different approaches in deciding whether to publish the WikiLeaks information. The New York Times provided an extensive explanation of its decision to publish, after obtaining the documents from an anonymous source. But The Wall Street Journal and CNN declined to enter into a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks in order to obtain some of the documents, WSJ reports.
During a recent ACS event, experts provided some helpful First Amendment perspective on the WikiLeaks phenomenon, including how First Amendment protection of sensitive information has developed and what place shield laws that protect anonymous sources have in this discussion.
Moderator Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, and a former lawyer for the newspaper, framed the discussion in saying:
The great democratization of information on the Internet, notably in the form of WikiLeaks, means there is no responsible party to negotiate with on the other side. For better or worse, we [The New York Times] held back on the warrantless wiretapping story, in part because we consulted with, and were persuaded by, things the government was telling us. We may have made the wrong decision, but it wasn't for want of trying to get it right, trying to strike the balance correctly. That doesn't seem to be the case in many quarters on the Internet today. So, we live in a new world.
ACS has compiled some of the most relevant comments in a WikiLeaks highlights video below. Watch the full discussion on the interplay between national security and government transparency here, including a keynote address by White House Open Government Initiative Director and U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer Beth Noveck.
I think we all need to be
I think we all need to be careful not to endorse tactics as those employed by the hacking activists who attempt to co-opt a legitimate and democratic venture such as wikileaks giving easy ammunition to those that are against freedom of speech and equate a journalist such as Julian Assange to a common terrorist, when in fact the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. online casinoonline pokies
Wow
Wikileaks is leaking information that puts YOUR security in danger. Now, the problem is that everyone says they want to be told what is going on, but when they do know they suddenly turn around and want to forget it. This irrational way of thinking leads to more problems for the country than necessary. What also must be understood is that to obtain security and small amount of your "right to know" must be given up. It's a give and take relationship. Stop being selfish and realize that when you act ignorant, you ask for an insecure nation. Compromise is the only way to go, you can't have all of one or all of both.
Freedom isn't FREE
Once you give up any freedom you WON'T get it back. Americans left and fought a long war with Great Briton to get the freedoms we still have. Look at Germany under Hitler, the USSR under communism. All of those people were fairly secure from outside threats, slaves had security from threats from people who were not their owners.
I for one chose to have ALL of my freedom. If that means that I have a little less security from outside countries, well I volunteered to go to war once I guess I can do it again.
Freedom of speech
Of course wikileaks is legal its all about freedom speech and as mentioned before the world has the right to know what's happening in the countries govermments!>
wikileaks
No it is not legel because the person who posted the leaks does not live in the us he lives in switzerland so the first amenment does not apply to him!
SOCIAL SECUJRITY
RanknFile--Bring Home our National Guard and DEFUND HOMELAND SECURITY
Assange and Public Information
As governments continue a downward spiral of corruption, outfits like WikiLeaks spike their abuses of their citizens and disrupt their theft from their own national resources. The entire Assange case should be dropped and Assange should sue the governments persecuting him for enough restitution to provide him his own Web node and keep him online indefinitely. If the 'secret' isn't of serious immediate tactical nature, there should be no restriction on it.
I love it went people think
I love it went people think saying "by definition" makes them sound more credible.
Trying to hide their
Trying to hide their corruption? Have you seen anything on WikiLeaks? The majority of the documents actually make the U.S. Government look good, especially considering the diplomatic world power that it is. The issues are how the documents show OTHER country's governments.
Whether the documents do or do not make a country and its government (our own or not) look good OR bad, that is not the issue. The issue is the confidentiality of the documents, which is not protected under the First Amendment. Sorry.
Are people actually naive enough to wonder whether something of this magnitude is allowed under your rights? Yes, your rights protect you from breaking Federal Law ... The biggest issue in America is not its government, it's its uneducated citizens.
Almost none of the releases come under "National Security"
"National Security" has come to mean the security of war criminals, violators of the Constitution, empire-builders that range from in-office petty tyrants to New World Order genocidalists. Anyone in a government position feels that their personal safety and remaining unaccountable for the misuse of the power of their offices is vital to the nation's interests. We the People have become game pieces, domestic animals, corporate resources - anything and everything but what we are: the source of this country's wealth, and the people for whom our public-servants-become-public-masters supposedly work. There are offices in government now that are accountable to NO ONE. Even one is too many, but there are far more than that, and the professionally paranoid spy agencies are the worst, as they appear to have incorporated most of Law Enforcement in the country, and those are almost as vulnerable to the "everyone-but-our-own-is-The-Enemy" syndrome. That last is quite literal: absolutely every mindset Americans can have is on someone's list to be watched. That's a dictatorship; it has nothing to do with and no place in a representative republic, and in fact it's a danger in and of itself!
Wikileaks has torn the covers off of a lot of the malfeasance in office that's been hidden under the National Security classification. Now it's up to any real statesmen in government, especially the Congress, and to We the People to change it. Personally, I don't care to be assassinated because some idiot clerk in an office in an underground bunker somewhere in Wyoming misread a note!
Ian
wikileaks and u.s. government
Do as I say not as I do. Interesting is in it. Sound familiar
wikileaks
KEEP IT GOIN wikileaks the world has a right to know just keep it legal
of course the u.s. goverment
of course the u.s. goverment wants wiki leaks website down its because they are all trying to hide their coruption and the real reasons that were in iraq and other stuff... here comes the "NWO" fast and strong
First Amendment Schmirst Amendment
The First Amendment and all amendments, laws, constitutions, etc are just ink on paper - nothing more, nothing less. It is the group conformity of the citizenry that makes these documents have any effect on society. From the beginnings of recorded history leaders, politicians, and governments have dones things that are not always in the best interests of the citizenry. In other words, governments (by definition) cannot be trusted. For this reason, it is a good thing that information globally concerning all government activity everywhere be more transparent for all to see. It's like putting the cards on the table. When nothing can be hidden, governments and leaders have to become more responsible to the citizenry, or revolution will prevail. Many countries, including France and the U.S., are products of revolutions. Revolutions can bring about good change for the citizenry. When govt's become unwielding bureaucracies and unable to look out for the needs of the citizens, it's time for change. Constitutions aren't the words of the creator of the universe, they're just pieces of paper that we tend to give some weight to. When the pieces of paper themselves don't represent our collective ideals then the paper is meaningless - regardless of what the lawyers, judges and politicians want us to believe.
Post new comment