En 2010, WikiLeaks a publié les premiers articles d’une séries de documents classifiés concernant les États-Unis. Si Julian Assange, le créateur de ce site révélateur d’informations sensibles, peut être qualifié de journaliste, il pourrait bénéficier du premier amendement selon Katie Engelhart.
Exposition des faits
En 2010, WikiLeaks, un moyen de dénonciation clandestin, a publié les premiers articles d’une séries de documents classifiés des ministères américains. Ces documents, qui venaient de 274 ambassades et consulats américains du monde entier, comprenaient des rapports confidentiels (parfois, tout sauf flatteurs) sur des pays hôtes et leurs dirigeants. On pense qu’ils ont été divulgués par l’ancien officier de l’armée américaine, Bradley Manning (il a été jugé pour cet acte et attend le verdict). Bientôt, plus de 250 000 câbles ont été rendus publics durant ce qui est devenu la divulgation de documents classifiés la plus importante qui ait jamais eu lieu. A la fin de 2010, les câbles avaient été largement publiés dans la presse- cela faisait partie d’un contrat passé entre WikiLeaks et cinq journaux majeurs. Le minisre de la défense des Etats Unis, Robert Gates, estime que ce débalage de documents est “extraordinairement gênant”. D’autres préfèrent employer les termes de “menaces à la sécurité nationale”.
Cet événement – qui a ensuite été appelé Cablegate (par référence au scandale de Watergate des années 1970)- a fait de Julian Assange une célébrité. Mais cela en fait-il pour autant un journaliste? Cette question est maintenant un aspect essentiel d’un débat pressant à propos de ce qui constitue un journaliste, ou le journalisme à l’âge d’internet. Si Julian Assange est considéré comme un journaliste, cela lui donne des droits que beaucoup d’états accordent à ce groupe professionnel. Aux Etats Unis par exemple, les reporters qui reçoivent des informations grâce à des sources gouvernementales ont droit à un certain nombre de privilèges, et souvent à une protection, garantis par le 1er amemdement. Toutefois, si l’on ne considère pas Julian Assange comme un journaliste, il doit se défendre seul et n’est pas protégé par les libertés propres à la presse. Aux Etats Unis, le débat sur les limites de ce qui constitue un groupe professionnel n’est pas nouveau (on se souvient de la fuite des “Pentagon Papers” de 1971). Mais il a pris aujourd’hui une nouvelle ampleur lorsque des procureurs ont demandé à ce que Julian Assange soit poursuivi en justice pour son rôle dans le Cablegate.
Ses critiques l’attaquent en arguant que le déversement de documents sur internet ne fait pas partie de l’entreprise journalistique. Ils considèrent plutôt Assange comme une “source”. Ses opposants les plus extrêmes ont qualifié WikiLeaks d’organisation terroriste, on est bien loin du simple moyen d’information. L’ancienne candidate à la vice-présidence des États-Unis, Sarah Palin, a déclaré qu’Assange était comparable à Al Qaida. Mais des groupes comme le Centre for Investigative Journalism reconnaît Assange comme l’un des leurs. Beaucoup d’avocats et de commentateurs américains spécialistes du premier amemdement sont d’accord avec cette catégorisation et considèrent que “la différence entre les journalistes professionnels et les gens qui propagent des informations, des idées et des opinions à un public élargi a en grande partie disparue avec l’avènement du Web.”
(Assange lui-même préfère le titre d’éditeur et de co-rédacteur en chef qui organisent et dirigent d’autres journalistes.)
reply report Report comment
I have been an activist for good causes for many years; I have a degree of ambivalence regarding it all. I believe that in some cases Julian Assange may have been wrong according to the written letter of the law. However surly the law should be able to accommodate fairness and justice. I must confess to being a moron and not having studied these issues devoutly. The more I have seen during my campaigning the more I have learned that the law is often the plaything of the rich. Particularly where the United States or big corporations are involved. I remember the Vietnam war and Daniel Ellsberg’s whistle blowing about the true horror and hopelessness of that war. Has time past : Anne Machon, Katharine Gunn, Craig Murry, and a multitude of others have spoken out regarding the ubiquitous horrors they had discovered.
I used to write silly campaign letters to ‘tin pot despots’ in countries I had to look for on a big map; now I see evil all around me I have written to Julian Assange many times and have sent Postal Orders , but the Postal Orders have been stopped. The media has changed, few people trust the media or anything official. We are seeing much unrest.
reply report Report comment
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.
reply report Report comment
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.
reply report Report comment
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.
reply report Report comment
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.