3 ms·

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 go

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.

3 ms·

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 go

by AndrewBissell 6y ago

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.