RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Dec 27, 2010 at 1:37am
RESOLVED: Wikileaks is a legitimate member of the fourth estate, deserving of First Amendment protections.
This is the second stage. If you're AGAINST this motion, I'd like to know how you answer the following questions:
- If your argument is that Wikileaks has put lives at risk, would you argue that the First Amendment does not apply whenever anyone says anything that puts lives at risk? If not, can you suggest a more coherent standard?
- Do you think U.S.C. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, 798 of the 1917 Espionage Act should apply to everyone who has re-published this information, including Ricochet? If not, why not? Why focus on Wikileaks, in particular?
- Are the intentions, motivations and political opinions of Julian Assange relevant to this discussion? Who cares whether he hates the United States or intends to cause mischief--the First Amendment protects all speech, not just speech we agree with--right?
- Can you draw any compelling distinction between this case and the Pentagon Papers case?
Feel free to suggest other questions for those against the argument in this thread. Just questions, not arguments. Otherwise, this thread is for those against to refine their arguments.
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
I think we should argue that Wikileaks has violated the 1917 Espionage Act and that, therefore, it has made itself ineligible for 1st Amendment protection (which explains why I posted the initial references to the 1917 Espi Act). Organizations have the right to express themselves freely, meaning the human constituents of organizations are sanctioned to say or write whatever they want, as long as they do not resort to duress. When organizations express themselves, the 1st Amendment prevents the government from coercively obstructing their expression. If Wikileaks expresses itself by disclosing information that it does not have the right to disclose, then the 1st Amendment does not prevent the government from coercively obstructing this kind of expression, nor does it prevent the government from punishing Wikileaks. Wikileaks has disclosed information that it does not have the right to disclose. Hence, Wikileaks has forfeited its 1st Amendment protection.
Appealing to Assange's political opinions won't help because there are no particular political convictions, the possession of which will make one ineligible for 1st Amendment protection.
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 4:15amOct '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
I would say that the First Amendment is definitely not applicable when American lives are put at risk by the theft and conveyance of security-sensitive information to our nation's enemies.
If I recall correctly, in yesterday's comment thread someone argued that the data disseminated by Wikileaks falls under the protection of the First Amendment because it is merely information rather than the physical documents themselves that have been stolen. By that standard, would it not have been impossible to have convicted Julius and Ethel Rosenberg of conspiracy to commit espionage? After all, they did not physically steal an atomic bomb and hand it over to the Soviets. Rather, they stole and conveyed the information on how to construct such a device.
Jun '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
Greetings and salutations from the For thread.
The current state of the law is New York Times vs. United States (the "Pentagon Papers case.") How do you distinguish Elsberg/NYT from Manning/Wikileaks?
(Sorry, Claire had already raised this challenge)
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 5:18amRe: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
I don't think Wikileaks constitutes "the press" for purposes of the First Amendment. An organization that simply dumps documents into the public domain without any commentary or value-add hardly strikes me as meeting the bare minimum for "the press."
But I don't think it matters. The First Amendment protects speech, but it does not protect the speaker from all consequences of speech. not entities. Assuming that it is part of the "press," Wikileaks is entitled to publish without prior restraint. But not even that means that Wikileaks or other entities are shielded from post-publication consequences, be it a libel lawsuit or prosecution under the espionage act.
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 5:13amDec '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
I think the line is drawn at acts that endanger the security and lives of US citizens and our allies, especially in a time of war.
No one would have a had a "right" to publicly leak the plans for D-Day a week or two before that date. They would not be protected by the First Amendment. Anyone doing that would be aiding and abetting an enemy and placing the lives, welfare, and security of the citizens of the US and our allies at risk. They would clearly be acting as an enemy.
Have Wikileaks and Assange crossed this line? I think so. If they had focused on a specific instance of alleged wrongdoing and only "leaked" classified information that supported a specific allegation of wrongdoing it might be different. I think that is what the "press" does and what the First Amendment is intended to protect.
But the wholesale and largely indiscriminate publication of vast amounts of classified and secret stolen material serves no such purpose and it places the security of the US and the lives of its citizens, its military, and its allies at great risk.
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 7:12amDec '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
The Pentagon Papers were a single internal document that documented a specific internal study conducted by the DoD that was concerned with a fairly specific area of foreign policy, US foreign policy regarding Vietnam. Also, it was published to support reasonably specific allegations of wrongdoing by the US government in conducting its Vietnam foreign policy.
The collection of information Assange and Wikileaks have released is nothing like this. Only in the broadest sense is it related to the decisions the US has made in its foreign policy and no specific allegations of wrong doing are made or supported, other than by filtering through the material and carefully picking and choosing here and there.
I wonder if Justice Black and those concurring in his opinion on the PP would have ruled similarly if what had been indiscriminately released and published by the NYT was a record of all of his and his fellow justices private correspondence written in an official capacity along with transcripts of all of their private discussions and deliberations related to all of their their rulings in the previous several years.
Jun '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
Nickolas
I wonder if Justice Black and those concurring in his opinion on the PP would have ruled similarly if what had been indiscriminately released and published by the NYT was a record of all of his and his fellow justices private correspondence written in an official capacity along with transcripts of all of their private discussions and deliberations related to all of their their rulings in the previous several years. · Dec 27 at 8:07am
Justice Black's discomforture aside, would the public interest be well or ill-served by such a disclosure? (This from a Court that doesn't allow televised coverage of its hearings)
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
The US is not required to extend Constitutional protections to foreigners/ foreign entities. For example, US citizens cannot be deported at will, yet this is done every day to non-citizens who are here illegally.
The Constitution and its Amendments were exclusively written by and for "We the People of the United States" not "We the Citizens of the World".
Wikileaks is a foreign company headed by a foreign national which operates overseas. As such, neither Mr. Assange nor Wikileaks are entitled to any Constitutional protections.
Mr. Assange should rightfully be tried for espionage with the damage inflicted coupled with his anarchist motives. He is clearly a foreign threat and he should be treated accordingly.
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
In order to demonstrate the conclusion that Wikileaks has violated the Espionage Act, I'll post a number of links that identify the motivations as well as effects of Wikileaks' disclosure of certain government information:
-Cato analyst David Rittgers on the general effects of the behavior of Wikileaks
-"Taliban Study Wikileaks to Hunt Informants"
-"Publication of Afghan informant details worth the risk: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange"
-"The nihilism of Wikileaks and Julian Assange compromises U.S. security"
-"Leaked details put Informant lives in danger"
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 10:34amJul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
The Pentagon Papers were a coherent work, a top secret analysis of US-Vietnamese relations and related policy from 1945-1967.
(Cont.)
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
Conclusions: Neither Times vs. United States nor the cases against Ellsberg and Rocco, marred by substantial Government misconduct and never carried to verdict, represent admissable precedent in Wikileaks. Times vs. United States places substantial burdens of proof on the government in prior restraint cases, but these are non specific and the verdict is explicitly specific to the case at hand.
Finally, while silencing Wikileaks may, in effect, represent prior restraint, that does not render Wikileaks immune to potentially terminal action based on the Espionage Act, and protection of Wikileaks was obviously not a consideration in the Times vs. United States verdict.
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 9:30amDec '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
Thanks to a little espionage, here’s some information purloined from the other camp, which by their logic, they can do nothing about Ricochet’s publishing it.
First, they have an inviolable faith in impunity for anything that harms the government.
Second, they use the 1st Amendment as a wall of separation between tangible property and intangible government information (and the conveyance thereof) to which different rules apply.
Accordingly, WikiLeaks fits into their syllogism thus:
The press is free to harm the government.
WikiLeaks harmed the government.
Therefore, WikiLeaks is part of the free press.
Finally, their libertarian spirit abandons all hope of extending any jurisdiction beyond our borders.
This would suggest that the argument for the straightforward application of the Espionage Act and punishment of the agents of WikiLeaks as co-conspirators will go in one ear and out the other.
In conclusion, though appropriate laws exist and the evidence is verifiable, nevertheless, the crux of the WikiLeaks debate consists of prosecutorial discretion and political will—the rule of men who hold power prevails.
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
Charles Gordon: ...
Finally, their libertarian spirit abandons all hope of extending any jurisdiction beyond our borders.
... · Dec 27 at 9:25am
Right or wrong, it has long been the habit of the nation-state to extend its authority beyond its borders where its interests are concerned, with diplomacy and threat of retaliation being the only counters.
The opposition begins at a 4-1 deficit for votes for a reason.
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
The issue has been raised by the "FOR" side that WikiLeaks bears no responsibility for what other people bring them, nor are they responsible for bad information security that allows this in the first place.
In the case of PFC Bradley Manning, however, I don't think this applies. As near as we can figure, Manning's actions were the result of personal pique rather than deep ideological conviction. Recall how he got caught: he confessed to famed hacker Adrian Lamo, whom he clearly considered a kindred spirit. Lamo, a self-described WikiLeaks contributor, turned him in. "He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air," Lamo said. This is the precise opposite of a careful appraisal of damaging information that needs to be made public.
WikiLeaks is therefore an "attractive nuisance", as they provide an easy means of divulging large, unexamined secret information (anyone care to argue Manning actually read everything he stole?) with far less risk of interception or capture than would be involved in selling the info to the Russsians, Chinese, Al Qaeda, etc.
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
By "libertarian" I hope you don't mean "marked by respect for civil liberties." Civil liberties are threatened when some choose to disclose information that threatens the lives and property of those working on behalf of the federal government in Afghanistan.
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
Most First Amendment jurisprudence involves balancing tests; balancing the rights of students to self-expression with the rights of schools to maintain discipline, for example.
The question then becomes one of balancing the salutary effects of greater public knowledge of government secrets in a democracy, versus the risk to lives of persons revealed by the information.
What has Wiki revealed that has been particularly important for the public to know? That there have been differences of opinion in matters of war and state? That we have low opinions of some foreign officials? That there are differing assessments of civilian casualties (a complex thing to track) even within the same organization? Pardon me while I find a fainting couch.
The only really significant thing from the WikiLeaks have been the risks to Afghans who are cooperating with the US. Lives have been jeopardized, with no real gains in revelation. Balancing test failed.
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
There appears to be an assumption to the Against argument coalescing that willful, repeated violations of the Espionage Act without a public interest component results in a de facto delegitimization of a news organization. The relevance of the fact that that the Times engages in much behavior in apparent violation of the Espionage Act and is not prosecuted does in no way mean that the Times cannot or should not be prosecuted when it behaves in this way. The fact that many responsible and learned lawyers have urged prosecution in these cases suggests they have merit.
In summary: To hold up the Times as a paragon of a good American press when it has spent at least the last decade in pernicious partisan skullduggery raises more questions about the legitimacy of the Times than it lends support to the legitimacy of Wikileaks.
Dec '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
How could the First Amendment be of any value if you exercise your right to speech freely and are then prosecuted for it?
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
derek
How could the First Amendment be of any value if you exercise your right to speech freely and are then prosecuted for it?
As I wrote earlier, the 1st Amendment does not protect self-expression that violates or threatens to violate the rights of others. By publishing information on informants, Assange threatened the lives of informants working on behalf of the government and their associates. The 1st Amendment does not recognize a right to say or write or publish whatever one wants, to whomever one wishes.
Nov '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES: AGAINST
Point # 1
American press freedoms are an extension of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech for all American citizens.
Point # 2
Julian Assange claims to be "the heart and soul of this organization, it's founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest." Julian Assange is not an American citizen and Wikileaks is not an American publication and therefore neither Assange nor Wikileaks is protected by the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech. (Am I correct about the status of Wikileaks in this reference?)
Point # 3
Justice Sotomayor in a speech given at the University of Denver suggested that the Wikileaks publication could result in a case in front of the Supreme Court on free speech. The Justice also said in reference to the Pentagon Papers that "they did not represent the beginning of the question but an issue that keeps arising from generation to generation of how far we will permit government restriction on freedom of speech in favor of protection of the country."