4 ms·

> Assange leaked documents that he had to illegally acquire first (either with help or without, but either way he was in possession of stolen goods). You can't

by MiroF 6y ago

> Assange leaked documents that he had to illegally acquire first (either with help or without, but either way he was in possession of stolen goods). You can't get whistleblower protection for leaking information you didn't have legal access to. Should we charge the journalists who distributed Snowden's leaks as well? This seems like making a distinction to draw a line between the two, but I am missing the explanation for why this distinction has moral import.

jedberg 6y ago
> Should we charge the journalists who distributed Snowden's leaks as well? We don't need to, we know who their source was (Snowden). If Assange wants to claim he's a journalist, that's fine, but then he either needs to accept the consequences of protecting his sources, or out his sources. > but I am missing the explanation for why this distinction has moral import. It's a question of responsibility. When a journalist protects their sources, they accept responsibility for the consequences, and they they chose to reveal their source, they pass on the consequences to their source, but (usually) take a hit to their reputation as a journalist. Assange appears to not want to accept any consequences for his actions, nor pass them on be revealing his sources.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > We don't need to, we know who their source was (Snowden). If Assange wants to claim he's a journalist, that's fine, but then he either needs to accept the consequences of protecting his sources, or out his sources. Journalists are legally required to put their sources or they are on the hook? I suggest you revisit the case history on this subject.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    > I suggest you revisit the case history on this subject. Can you point me at some links? I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that shield laws are state by state, and there are no federal protections.
    - paxswill 6y ago
      The Wikipedia article for "reporter's privilege" [0] has an overview of the various laws (statutory and case laws) regarding it. At the national level, the Supreme Court has only ruled on it once, in Branzburg v Hayes [1] which ruled that journalists can be compelled to testify to a grand jury. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  Your interpretation of the legal outcome for journalists who publish leaks does not line up with any kind of real jurisprudence, at least not in the U.S. The government is not even making this kind of argument in Assange's own case.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    My understanding is that shield laws are different in every state, but the US doesn't have any federal shield laws. Since Assange wasn't in a state when he made the leaks, he wouldn't be protected by state laws. I also understand that no journalist has ever been successfully prosecuted, but no case has ever gone to the Supreme Court about it either. My understanding about the Assange case in particular is that they are pursuing other crimes because they are more likely to stick and more likely to result in extradition. But that doesn't mean he's not guilty of other crimes. I'm not a lawyer though, so if there is other information I'm missing, I'd definitely like to learn about it.
    - LMYahooTFY 6y ago
      I think this seems to be a large crux of the entire phenomenon: How to classify Wikileaks, and similar platforms. It's not focused on enough IMO, but part of the defence of Wikileaks I typically hear is that as a result of their persecution and prosecution, there are serious journalistic freedoms under threat. It seems that Wikileaks and the like do not neatly fit under previous classifications we may have. They certainly don't fit the legal ones, as those seem to mostly cut populations into free speech for citizens and foreign spies. On a related note, off the top of my head I do recall that at least a few of the lawyers and journalists who were involved with Wikileaks, and Edward Snowden, were apparently advised to go into political exile. I think at least some of them did return last I heard.
- belorn 6y ago
  Journalism source protection under EU does not look kind to forcing journalist to out sources. The European Court of Human Rights have already ruled against the United Kingdom High Court on a case where UK tried to demand journalist to out sources. It is in a very bad style and not very civilized to go after journalists and demand that they out their sources.

by MiroF 6y ago

jedberg 6y ago

> Should we charge the journalists who distributed Snowden's leaks as well? We don't need to, we know who their source was (Snowden). If Assange wants to claim he's a journalist, that's fine, but then he either needs to accept the consequences of protecting his sources, or out his sources. > but I am missing the explanation for why this distinction has moral import. It's a question of responsibility. When a journalist protects their sources, they accept responsibility for the consequences, and they they chose to reveal their source, they pass on the consequences to their source, but (usually) take a hit to their reputation as a journalist. Assange appears to not want to accept any consequences for his actions, nor pass them on be revealing his sources.

MiroF 6y ago
> We don't need to, we know who their source was (Snowden). If Assange wants to claim he's a journalist, that's fine, but then he either needs to accept the consequences of protecting his sources, or out his sources. Journalists are legally required to put their sources or they are on the hook? I suggest you revisit the case history on this subject.
- jedberg 6y ago
  > I suggest you revisit the case history on this subject. Can you point me at some links? I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that shield laws are state by state, and there are no federal protections.
  - paxswill 6y ago
    The Wikipedia article for "reporter's privilege" [0] has an overview of the various laws (statutory and case laws) regarding it. At the national level, the Supreme Court has only ruled on it once, in Branzburg v Hayes [1] which ruled that journalists can be compelled to testify to a grand jury. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes
AndrewBissell 6y ago
Your interpretation of the legal outcome for journalists who publish leaks does not line up with any kind of real jurisprudence, at least not in the U.S. The government is not even making this kind of argument in Assange's own case.
- jedberg 6y ago
  My understanding is that shield laws are different in every state, but the US doesn't have any federal shield laws. Since Assange wasn't in a state when he made the leaks, he wouldn't be protected by state laws. I also understand that no journalist has ever been successfully prosecuted, but no case has ever gone to the Supreme Court about it either. My understanding about the Assange case in particular is that they are pursuing other crimes because they are more likely to stick and more likely to result in extradition. But that doesn't mean he's not guilty of other crimes. I'm not a lawyer though, so if there is other information I'm missing, I'd definitely like to learn about it.
  - LMYahooTFY 6y ago
    I think this seems to be a large crux of the entire phenomenon: How to classify Wikileaks, and similar platforms. It's not focused on enough IMO, but part of the defence of Wikileaks I typically hear is that as a result of their persecution and prosecution, there are serious journalistic freedoms under threat. It seems that Wikileaks and the like do not neatly fit under previous classifications we may have. They certainly don't fit the legal ones, as those seem to mostly cut populations into free speech for citizens and foreign spies. On a related note, off the top of my head I do recall that at least a few of the lawyers and journalists who were involved with Wikileaks, and Edward Snowden, were apparently advised to go into political exile. I think at least some of them did return last I heard.
belorn 6y ago
Journalism source protection under EU does not look kind to forcing journalist to out sources. The European Court of Human Rights have already ruled against the United Kingdom High Court on a case where UK tried to demand journalist to out sources. It is in a very bad style and not very civilized to go after journalists and demand that they out their sources.