
Traditional journalists may abandon WikiLeaks’ Assange at their own peril - danso
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/traditional-journalists-may-abandon-wikileaks-assange-at-their-own-peril/2019/04/11/45ae985c-5c84-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html
======
pie_hacker
I have frequently seen the argument that Assange should be incarcerated
because he is dis-likeable. Thankfully, that is not a crime in the U.S.

It seems that the federal government is trying to prosecute Assange for
obtaining classified information from a source, a practice that is common
among investigative journalists. (The details, I suppose, are in exactly how
he obtained that information from the source). This seems to me to be clearly
protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A democracy that prosecutes civillians who obtain secret information from
sources for the purpose of disseminating said information to the public will
likely not remain a democracy for long.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That's not what they're trying to prosecute him for. They're prosecuting him
for conspiracy to break into DoD computers. That's kind of similar, but it's
not the same thing.

~~~
wolfgke
> They're prosecuting him for conspiracy to break into DoD computers.

So for doing source research.

~~~
trothamel
I suspect that if someone did source research by breaking the security of your
computer, you would want them prosecuted, too. Journalists can't be persecuted
for what they write, but they're not above the law.

~~~
jammygit
Persecuting journalists for what they write is becoming more and more common.

"[Reporters Without Borders] is also still troubled by the arrest of
journalists during #Blacklivesmatter protests in Baltimore and Minneapolis."

[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/04/20/475017281...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/04/20/475017281/u-s-ranks-41st-in-press-freedom-index-thanks-to-war-
on-whistleblowers)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to
news organizations

The news media likes to pretend that there is a special status for news
organizations and journalists. This is a common misconception that we need to
fight against. The First Amendment is not just for news organization, it is
for every US person. Back when the First Amendment was proposed and ratified,
anyone could obtain a printing press. The First Amendment makes no distinction
for a news organization or other publisher vs an ordinary citizen.

An example of new organizations trying to give themselves special status is
Chris Cuomo assertion that if you were not a media organization it would be a
crime for you to possess the Wikileaks emails.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-
emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/)

~~~
danso
I agree that people misinterpret the 1st Amendment as providing protections
specific to "news organizations" (though various states have given various
state-level protections to news orgs). But the author here doesn't appear to
be doing that. The full paragraph and the next:

> _Is the WikiLeaks founder, who until Thursday had been holed up in the
> Ecuadoran Embassy in London for years, essentially a publisher — though a
> notably strange one — who believes in taking radical steps to expose
> government secrets, and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment
> protections given to news organizations?_

> _Or is he a reckless traitor — and by no means a journalist — who deserves
> no such consideration and who should be prosecuted without worrying about
> free-press concerns._

Her rhetorical question allows for Assange, an individual, to be considered a
publisher, i.e. a news organization. In the next graf, it's clearer she's
framing the conflict as: "Is Assange a journalist and thus are his actions
protected by the rights to a free press?". But I agree that the sentence you
quoted could have been better stated as:

> and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given
> to _journalists_.

But I assume the reason why she said "news organizations" is because her
intended audience are people who work at news organizations, i.e. they should
be reading it as:

> and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given
> to _you_.

~~~
hermitdev
Well, regardless of your opinion of Assange, he cannot be guilty of traitorous
activity. He is not a US citizen or even resident. He is not in a position to
have committed treason against the US. Might he have committed crimes against
the US? Sure, if the conspiracy to break into US Gov systems charge is true.

Now Manning? That was treason, arguably during a time of war. Once upon a
time, that was a summary execution. Manning got off easy with the 35 year
initial sentence and even easier after Obama commuted the sentence.

~~~
austincheney
Manning wasn’t convicted of treason though. You cannot apply sentencing for
charges not convicted.

35 years was excessive sentencing for Manning’s conviction. Considering the
volume and seriousness of conduct a sentence of 5-8 years would have been more
appropriate as compared to other related convictions.

~~~
hermitdev
Whether convicted or not, Manning was found guilty of disclosing tens of
thousands of classified documents to someone/some organization Manning knew
that was intent on publicly disclosing that information, thus aiding an enemy
in a time of war, aka, treason.

Manning may not have been convicted of treason, but it is obvious from the
crimes Manning was convicted of, and the circumstances under which the crimes
were committed, that treason was committed.

IANAL, but it seems to me that given the conviction they were able to get,
prosecution could have easily gotten a treason conviction as well. Seems to me
to have been more of a political play. Obama got a "win" in being tough on
leakers of classified info, got a tough sentence, and then with a wink of the
eye on the way out the door after 2 terms commutes the sentence (yes, not a
full pardon).

Like I said, stinks of political interference and nothing to do about the
totality of the crime(s) committed.

~~~
austincheney
Manning was convicted of a real crime, a felony. It doesn't matter how much
you wish Manning were convicted of anything else. Manning could only be
sentenced for the crimes convicted.

------
nilskidoo
WL publishes documents with minimal context and no subtext, no added
commentary or presentation whatsoever. Which shows how dependent on
presentation has news reporting become. What Assange accomplished should be
viewed as a priceless resource for journalists, reams of data and pure info,
in unedited original words, there to speak for itself. If "fake news" is the
grand enemy today, then the feds are after the one and only purveyor of hard
facts without color, what they purport to favor in reactionary ideology.

~~~
laughinghan
What you _describe_ sounds great, but that's not what WikiLeaks was like. They
exposed stuff like "information for every female voter in 79 of Turkey’s 81
provinces — more than 20 million entries’ worth of addresses and cell-phone
numbers".

Is that the kind of "reams of data and pure info", "hard facts without color"
that should be viewed as a "priceless resource for journalists"? Of course
not. That's negligent exposure of people's private information, towards
absolutely no public interest whatsoever, and causing much public harm.

[http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-
hel...](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-
most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html)

------
telesilla
Outline link: [https://outline.com/spbLvB](https://outline.com/spbLvB)

