• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should WikiLeaks be considered part of the Press

Does WikiLeaks Qualify as "press"?

  • Total voters
    48
Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,954
Reaction score
60,483
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simple question, but harder to answer I think. When we think of the "press", we tend to think of newspapers and more recently, TV news. So what constitutes an organization being part of the "press" with the benefits that implies, and does WikiLeaks qualify?

edit: Poll finished.
 
It's a form of print media so I don't know why it wouldn't be press.

It doesn't follow the principles of ethical journalism, but really who does anymore?
 
Redress said:
Simple question, but harder to answer I think. When we think of the "press", we tend to think of newspapers and more recently, TV news. So what constitutes an organization being part of the "press" with the benefits that implies, and does WikiLeaks qualify?

edit: Poll finished.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's hard to answer myself. I think that they should be considered as part of the "press". To me the "press" is any organization that disseminates information to the masses that is truthful and accurate.
 
What characteristics must a news organization meet, historically speaking, to be protected by the first amendment?

This would make an awesome research project for someone.
 
Mmm, this is a hard question. I think it really depends if you classify someone who is leaking classified documents the press.
 
since their infomation was gathered illegally, I don't think they should be considered part of the press. at least not if you are using that status to imply that they have a constitutional right to release said information.

all the info wikileaks has can, in a way, be considered stolen property. it was classified information. the young PVT broke the law and numerous regulations by copying and releasing it.

wikileaks should return any and all information from this source to its rightful owner.



what if I was able, somehow, to hack into this forum's database and access everyone's IP and email addresses and then I started a website called DPleaks and publically posted any and all personal information on members here that I could find?

would I be considered "press"?
 
I would say no because they just seem to be a data warehouse. They don't talk about the documents they release; they just release them to other press entities.
 
Kal'Stang said:
To me the "press" is any organization that disseminates information to the masses that is truthful and accurate.
Click to expand...

so if a I and a bunch of my buddies broke into your house one night and stole your birth cert, driver's license, SS card, etc. and disseminated it to the masses, we would be the "press"?

the information is truthful and accurate.

Kal'Stang lives at 123 river road, anytown USA
his real name is Roger Rabbit
he was born july 4, 1940
he is 6 feet tall and weighs 180 pounds
his wife is named julie
he has 3 kids, ages 7, 9, 13
his social security number is 123-45-6789
he has a checking account at people's bank, the account number is 2312348


how far would pleading the 1st amendment get me?
 
Well, that was easy enough:

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Hughes:

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Company, supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra. 2
Click to expand...

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Obviously, there are differences between a periodical, a newspaper, a pamphlet, and an online blog. BUT, wikileaks seems to be covered by Chief Justice Hughes' definition of: "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

I mean...it would be difficult to argue that wikileaks isn't a vehicle of information. And thus, it's rights to publish are protected as "the press" in American law.

What bothers me is how thin people's commitments to the bill of rights apparently are. And yes, I'm talking to you, Nancy Pelosi.
 
Last edited:
Wikileaks is as much a part of the press as is, The Crusader, or, The Final Call
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
all the info wikileaks has can, in a way, be considered stolen property. it was classified information. the young PVT broke the law and numerous regulations by copying and releasing it.
Click to expand...

So did Daniel Ellsberg, who stole the Pentagon Papers and released them to the New York Times.

I'd recommend reading the following before commenting further:

Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
OscarB63 said:
so if a I and a bunch of my buddies broke into your house one night and stole your birth cert, driver's license, SS card, etc. and disseminated it to the masses, we would be the "press"?

the information is truthful and accurate.

Kal'Stang lives at 123 river road, anytown USA
his real name is Roger Rabbit
he was born july 4, 1940
he is 6 feet tall and weighs 180 pounds
his wife is named julie
he has 3 kids, ages 7, 9, 13
his social security number is 123-45-6789
he has a checking account at people's bank, the account number is 2312348


how far would pleading the 1st amendment get me?
Click to expand...

Not very far since...

1: you broke into my house. No one from Wikileaks broke into anyones house. So a very bad analogy on your part.

2: That is private information of a private individual. The government is not a private entity. It is a public entity which is answerable to the public. Again a very bad analogy on your part.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not very far since...

1: you broke into my house. No one from Wikileaks broke into anyones house. So a very bad analogy on your part.

2: That is private information of a private individual. The government is not a private entity. It is a public entity which is answerable to the public. Again a very bad analogy on your part.
Click to expand...

does nothing to change the fact that this is classified information that was illegally obtained
 
apdst said:
Wikileaks is as much a part of the press as is, The Crusader, or, The Final Call
Click to expand...

IF those are publications that provide information and/or opinion, then yes, they'd be protected.

Let me put it like this...PLAYBOY is the press.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
does nothing to change the fact that this is classified information that was illegally obtained
Click to expand...

Illegally obtained by Manning. Not wikileaks. Manning is the one that stole the info and as such should be punished for treason and espionage.

Since wikileaks is considered a news organization (thanks Catz for post #9) they may legally obtain such stolen information and disseminate it under the 1st amendment. This was shown in the case against the NYT's for publishing the Pentagon Papers.
 
This thread just illustrates why...

1) The Supreme Court is needed.

2) Being an American is sometimes so complicated.
 
OscarB63 said:
just because it has been done before doesn't make it right, or legal. :shrug:
Click to expand...

ummm..if it has been done before and was deemed legal in a court of law then...umm..yeah it's legal.

As for weather it makes it "right". That is a matter of opinion. One persons wrong is another persons right.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not very far since...

1: you broke into my house. No one from Wikileaks broke into anyones house. So a very bad analogy on your part.

2: That is private information of a private individual. The government is not a private entity. It is a public entity which is answerable to the public. Again a very bad analogy on your part.
Click to expand...

They kind of did break into the governments house. This was classified materials and there as laws in place protecting classified materials. Because they were classified, it not public information. It falls under confidentiality rules no matter if the entity that owns the documents in public.

I might add that the espionage law essentially makes it illegal to have the documents if the government hasn't given you permission. So Wikileaks did illegally obtain the documents and the death penalty is on the table.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
2) Being an American is sometimes so complicated.
Click to expand...

This is why you will rarely find me bashing any one particular political party line. I've been called a liberal, a conservative, a neo-nazi, socialist, and many many other things all because I support things based on things other than party line BS.
 
hallam said:
They kind of did break into the governments house. This was classified materials and there as laws in place protecting classified materials. Because they were classified, it not public information. It falls under confidentiality rules no matter if the entity that owns the documents in public.

I might add that the espionage law essentially makes it illegal to have the documents if the government hasn't given you permission. So Wikileaks did illegally obtain the documents and the death penalty is on the table.
Click to expand...

failboat_arrival_Failboat_Collection-s500x378-80204-580.jpg
 
Kal'Stang said:
This is why you will rarely find me bashing any one particular political party line. I've been called a liberal, a conservative, a neo-nazi, socialist, and many many other things all because I support things based on things other than party line BS.
Click to expand...

Welcome to my world. It's difficult being a moderate at times. Clearly, my pragmatism is my undoing.
 
As brilliant as your post is not, the death penalty is a possible consequence for those involved. Read the law; it is a possible outcome. We don't take treason lightly in this country so I wouldn't even say that death penalty is a far unlikely possibility. But I wouldn't say we will default for it. So I see your fail boat and raise you a

DoubleFacePalm1_Facepalm_collection-s750x600-82170.jpg
 
Last edited:
hallam said:
They kind of did break into the governments house. This was classified materials and there as laws in place protecting classified materials. Because they were classified, it not public information. It falls under confidentiality rules no matter if the entity that owns the documents in public.
Click to expand...

Wikileaks did not break into anyones house. They did not steal the information. Manning did. And I hope that Manning is prosecuted to the fullest extant of the law.

hallam said:
I might add that the espionage law essentially makes it illegal to have the documents if the government hasn't given you permission. So Wikileaks did illegally obtain the documents and the death penalty is on the table.
Click to expand...

A law which has never been applied successfully against the Press.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom