Дебаты о свободе слова

Комментарии (4)

Автоматический перевод предоставлен Google Translate. Пожалуйста имейте в виду, что этот перевод рассчитан только на то, чтобы дать представление о том, что написано в комментарии, и не передает точно всех нюансов сказанного.

1. dwittenberg:

   Февраль 15, 2012 в 4:05 пп

   Katie, within the context of “journalism,” it’s hard to label Assange a journalist. He’s more like Daniel Ellsberg than Carl Bernstein. But the solution is not to expand the definition — legal, lay or otherwise — of “journalism.” Because if speech is a right, whether or not a particular citizen is a “journalist” shouldn’t matter.

   If speech is a right, then all citizens should have so-called journalistic privilege. Speech rights (and derivative rights like press and religion) are universal, and shouldn’t be contingent on whether a citizen is a “journalist” or a “cleric.” It’s dangerous for governments to draw lines among “journalists” and “non-journalists,” (or any of the other categories you mentioned). It amounts to governments deciding who may and may not speak. This line-drawing — and the attendant situational government privilege-granting it entails — seems antithetical to the notion of speech as a “right.”

   Even so, in this particular case, your concern with “applying the law in a lopsided fashion” seems misplaced. I can’t say (at least, not briefly) whether or not Assange’s actions ought to be criminalized — or whether he’d have a valid First Amendment defense even if they were (the U.S. Government seems intent on his extradition, so let’s assume U.S. law at least for my sake). But Wikileaks’ original publication of classified material is qualitatively and legally different from newspapers’ ex-post publication of content that Wikileaks had already made public.

   Войдите, чтобы ответить Report comment
2. jlrmarin:

   Февраль 21, 2012 в 3:31 дп

   I’m going to start my comment by agreeing, partially, with David. I’m not certain that it’s useful, or desirable, to distinguish between free speech and a specific journalistic privilege. But by that logic (and to return to Katie’s point), why isn’t Assange a journalist? He probably has little resemblance to your beat reporter, but how different is he from the editor or owners of the New York Times in terms of disseminating information? I don’t think Assange is wrong in asserting that hypothetically, although no one would want him as their editor. I think he is a journalist, rather than some sort of whistleblower or terrorist.

   He’s also not a Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg was a definitely whistleblower, and in the same vein you could probably apply that label to Bradley Manning and other insiders who put their necks on the line. The two have shared different fates for the same reason: whether or not it was politically desirable to prosecute them for releasing classified information. What constitutes sensitive information for government officials is based on highly irrational logic. If you are government or military personnel, however, there are restrictions on your behavior that make releasing information from the inside illegal. Bradley Manning could have got the death penalty for what he did because he’s a soldier. Ellsberg, I’m sure, wondered for a while whether he’d go to jail (I think he may have even said so when Fred Logevall had him speak at Cornell my first year).

   The fourth estate, however, has an obligation to dredge up the stuff that the government wants to keep classified. In this regard, one has to wonder how much Assange’s megalomania turned off potential defenders in the media. Clearly his best defense is to be seen as an investigative journalist of sorts. But NYT / DS /etc were certainly turned off by reckless decisions he made (such as revealing sources in cases where it would endanger their lives), and of course by his later sexual indiscretions.

   I can’t help but think that the process of disseminating all the classified material that Wikileaks had gathered is ultimately what soured the professional and public perception of Assange. Ultimately he released classified documents in order to inform the public of what the U.S. government (and others) we up to. When we describe in one sentence what happened, isn’t he closer to a Novak, Woodward or even an Herbert Matthews than anyone else? Take away the sneering, nasty megalomaniac and focus just on his actions, and I see the most wildly successful piece of investigative journalism in history.

   Войдите, чтобы ответить Report comment
3. dwittenberg:

   Февраль 21, 2012 в 3:50 дп

   Fair point, Jorge, I was sloppy with Ellsberg and used his name as a shorthand for “disseminator of documents” rather than inside whistleblower.

   Ellsberg of course was arrested and very likely could have gone to jail or worse. The last time I saw him speak, last year at HLS, he talked about a plot by Nixon adviser Howard Hunt to “neutralize” Ellsberg, including having Cuban waiters drop acid into Ellsberg’s soup before he was to speak at a benefit event.

   I agree, Jorge, that Assange’s sneering public attitude has limited his ability to be perceived as a public hero. But is he a Woodward? He certainly disseminated a lot of information. But to my mind it was a glut, without much investigative or reportorial about it. (i.e. without much judgment or value added.) And none of it was as earth-shattering, at least in direct political effects, as the revelations of Woodstein (or, for that matter, Ellsberg) — so I’d hesitate to place Assange above them.

   Войдите, чтобы ответить Report comment
4. Jack:

   Февраль 21, 2012 в 5:17 дп

   I fail to see what journalism has to do with it–except in the US? No profession should have special privileges. Either all have the same imprescriptible right of free speech or none have.
   As to Julian Assange, his case rests entirely on whether he knew he was disseminating stolen materials. If yes, then he should be charged accordingly. If not, then he was free to disseminate them in the belief they were in the public domain.
   Of course, if he were sensitive about the provenance of his materials, he should have inquired before scattering them all over the world. The evidence suggests that he was intent solely on embarrassing the American authorities. If that is the case, it is up to the Americans to charge him with some offence or other. But then, if he has not committed an offence in the country from which he disseminated the materials, he should not be subject to extradition. But we all know how politicians and governments behave when they want to appease or offend others.

   Войдите, чтобы ответить Report comment