3 ms·
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has decided that what wikileaks is doing falls under free speech in a number of cases. For one, there's whistleblower protect
by jbooth 16y ago
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has decided that what wikileaks is doing falls under free speech in a number of cases.
For one, there's whistleblower protections.
For another, it's legal to advocate fascism or any other unpopular ideology.
This isn't shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Unless it falls under espionage, it should be free speech.
- tedunangst 16y agoHow do the leaked cables not fall under espionage?
- quanticle 16y agoWikileaks did not commit espionage here, unless you're alleging that Julian Assange took those cables himself. The person that leaked the cables is liable for espionage (if the Pentagon can catch him or her). However, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case, the publishing organization has no prior restraint obligation. That is, the publisher doesn't have to hold back publication of something that's potentially damaging just because the government says so.
- tedunangst 16y agoThe Pentagon Papers case wasn't quite a free pass to publish anything you want, but more of a "government doesn't win by default" ruling. It doesn't mean the government can't win other cases involving other leaked info.
- tptacek 16y agoExactly what whistleblower protections were you thinking applied here?
- jbooth 16y agoYou're right, they're totally besides the point, because they apply to the whistleblower and not the media. It was generally assumed (until this week apparently) that it's always ok for the media to print things after they've been leaked. Nobody went after the NYT's hosting, for example. There's some detail on the actual laws at http://whistleblowerlaws.com/ http://whistleblowerlaws.com/