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.

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.

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.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
93 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

“…turning their sites on reporters at the NY Times…”

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.

Machin Shin (profile) says:

Yet another very clear signal that this government is out of control. These things they are going after reporters for is the VERY REASON that we have the 1st amendment.

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”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

They could just do a drone strike and blow up you and half the neighborhood. And when it comes out in the news that a couple dozen innocents were injured or killed, the government will just say that they were “guilty by vicinity” much like “guilty by association” or “guilty since a lobbyist told me so.”

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

> Any congressman proposing this should be
> 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.)

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Wikileaks hardly represents a journalism enterprise.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

In my mind, there is a significant difference between the NYT or CNN and a website that simply exists to republish classified information. Revealing classified documents is not the core business model of news organizations; it is incidental to what they do. 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.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“In my mind, there is a significant difference between the NYT or CNN and a website that simply exists to republish classified information”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

He does not deserve execution. No one had much of a problem with him or the organization that he is merely one representative of when the secrets published belonged to governments who did not happen to be the US. Funny that.

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.

Sneeje (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

First, they do not exist solely to republish classified information. They exist to republish information that governments, corporations, or other organizations do not wish to share with those they impact or affect.

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.

Christopher (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Hit the nail on the head with the ‘discretion causes problems’.

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.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

While normally I would agree with you, there are times when removing facts could be more than justified. A list of names and aliases of say mob informers, if published, would almost certainly bring about a number of deaths that could have easily been prevented.

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.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

In my mind, there is a significant difference between the NYT or CNN and a website that simply exists to republish classified information.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why would he call on the US? Do you somehow imagine that it’s not now on peoples’ “dubious government” list? Do you think the US is not now associated with human rights abuses, lawless and corrupt government, a lack of civil rights and is not increasingly being classified in peoples’ mind as a a rogue regime?

Where have you been the last decade or so?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It takes courage to stand up to bully’s… if you see a wrong and instead turn your head and say it’s “classified” therefore I will ignore it you are no better the the wrongdoer and as such a coward for not righting the wrong. If on the other hand you risk your freedom to expose the wrong you are indeed a person of courage. I have respect for the latter the former are just useless skin bags of shit.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“In my mind, there is a significant difference between the NYT or CNN and a website that simply exists to republish classified information.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Better thinkers than you have asserted that a people should be afraid of a government that is not afraid of them. Those betteer thinkers were entirely right about that.

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.

The Mighty Buzzard (profile) says:

It's a very odd situation

If you give one entity state secrets, you’re a spy and the punishment can get as nasty as execution. If you just shout the same secrets to the entire world, you’re a journalist and may wind up with a Pulitzer. Something about that is decidedly screwed up no matter what your feelings are about the specifics.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's a very odd situation

That doesn’t strike me as odd. If you acquire some state secrets and give them to only one entity, you obviously didn’t want anyone else knowing that you had them, and that seems more in line with actual espionage.
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.

The Mighty Buzzard (profile) says:

Re: Re: It's a very odd situation

It doesn’t at all bother you that telling a small number of people something gets you in trouble but telling everyone is peachy?

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: It's a very odd situation

First of all, I’ve already explained why that doesn’t inherently bother me: the scope of the disclosure says a lot about your motives.
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.

Tony MC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: It's a very odd situation

their goal is to have no secrets that shouldn’t have been secrets in the first place.

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's a very odd situation

i think the distinction is whether the government should be doing what they are doing. If they are committing illegal acts under national or international law then anyone revealing that is a whistleblower. If the person revealing it is a news organization then they are a reporter or journalist. Wikileaks needs to be defined as something in either of those ranges, but that hasn’t been done. They would clear themselves of a lot of harmful intent if they somehow became a journalism organization.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: It's a very odd situation

If you give one entity state secrets, you’re a spy and the punishment can get as nasty as execution. If you just shout the same secrets to the entire world, you’re a journalist and may wind up with a Pulitzer.

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.

LDoBe (profile) says:

Re: List

It’s interesting you mention the draft. I remember seeing a bunch of old films and reading in a lot of textbooks about the war effort at home during WWII, and it seems to me like Boeing and other large companies essentially were drafted. (I grew up in Seattle so I’ve been to all the museums a zillion times.)

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.

Mwhahaha says:

It’s called classified information for a reason. If you tell an enemy state that classified information either directly or via an open website, that’s still espionage and aiding an enemy.

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.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Except none of the information was leaked directly to an “enemy” unless you call the population of Earth the enemy.
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).

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s called classified information for a reason. If you tell an enemy state that classified information either directly or via an open website, that’s still espionage and aiding an enemy.

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.

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“It’s called classified information for a reason.”

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.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Isn't this similar to receiving stolen goods?

Stolen goods? HAHAHAHAH! My god, you are truly stretching it. Do you equate infringing copyright of digital files to stealing too?
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.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Isn't this similar to receiving stolen goods?

Except that 1- it wasn’t stolen, no1 was deprived of the original contents, 2- it was not obtained via espionage and 3- it highlights US wrongdoings.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Isn't this similar to receiving stolen goods?

Hypothetically speaking

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

Anti-Constitutional-Terrorist-Squad says:

Sounds like we in the military need to do what we swore to do when we joined. Uphold the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

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.

Purpleslog (user link) says:

Wikileaks used to describe themselves as an intellgence agency

As for Wikileaks, they described themselves as an Intellgence Agency way back at their start.

I noted that back then in this blog post:

https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/wiki-for-anti-anti-islamofascists-and-the-practice-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

That One Guy (profile) says:

Turnabout is apparently Not fair play after all

(Insert country here): ‘If you don’t have anything to hide, you won’t object to all this surveillance. After all, only the guilty would object to the measures we’re putting in place. You’re not guilty are you?’

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.

Leave a Reply to Christopher Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...