• 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
hallam said:
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

main.php
Click to expand...

*sigh*

When are people going to stop saying that wikileaks commited treason? Thier founder Assaunge is NOT an American and has no obligations or duties to America, as such he cannot be tried for treason.
 
I feel very torn on this issue, to be honest.

On the one hand, I think it is vital to protect 1st amendment freedoms (speech, press), and that transparency in government is a good thing.

On the other hand, pragmatically it is obvious that there are things which, if dissiminated to anyone and everyone, would be damaging to the national security. Among them include technical specs on weapons systems and military comms, actual troop deployments in dangerous areas, war plans, intelligence assets and foreign agents, that sort of thing.

My libertarian side is tempted to whoop and cheer and say "Cool, we need to shake things up and clear out the cobwebs once in a while!"

OTOH my conservative side wants to prosecute all Wikilinks people for criminal dissemination of classified documents.

Is it worth the risk and the damage done to shine that light in there? I remain somewhat undecided.
 
Kal'Stang said:
*sigh*

When are people going to stop saying that wikileaks commited treason? Thier founder Assaunge is NOT an American and has no obligations or duties to America, as such he cannot be tried for treason.
Click to expand...

I believe he was referring to Manning. However, he has not been charged with treason. As best I can find out, the maximum penalty he faces is 52 years in prison.
 
Another question: does US protection of a free press include foreign websites? The claim has been made repeatedly that Assange is not American, and therefore not bound by US law. Does he then also not get the same protections of US law?
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being in possession is the same thing as stealing with the law. Wikileaks just has to convey the informaiton which they did. Treason applies to Manning. Wikileaks and Assaunge can still be charged as the law is not limited to Americans. He can be tried for espionage.

Manning and Wikileaks did break the law. Now should they be punished in this day and age, maybe not. But they did break the law.

Kal'Stang said:
A law which has never been applied successfully against the Press.
Click to expand...

I don't think the pentagon papers rule applies here. They are a datawarehouse for sure. But to call a server the press may not be suppored here.
 
Redress said:
Another question: does US protection of a free press include foreign websites? The claim has been made repeatedly that Assange is not American, and therefore not bound by US law. Does he then also not get the same protections of US law?
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough much of what is in the Bill of Rights has often been applied to people outside our country. In fact we often use it as a mantra when talking about places like Iraq, Iran etc etc. So while those respective governments might not apply it to its citizens we do and often encourage people to follow such things as free speech and free press. How often have you heard of censorship of the press in a foreign country and US citizens and government condemning that censorship?
 
hallam said:
Being in possession is the same thing as stealing with the law. Wikileaks just has to convey the informaiton which they did. Treason applies to Manning. Wikileaks and Assaunge can still be charged as the law is not limited to Americans. He can be tried for espionage.

Manning and Wikileaks did break the law. Now should they be punished in this day and age, maybe not. But they did break the law.
Click to expand...

Since there are senators that want to change the espionage act enough to be able to prosecute Assaunge I would have to say that no, it doesn't apply to Assaunge.

hallam said:
I don't think the pentagon papers rule applies here. They are a datawarehouse for sure. But to call a server the press may not be suppored here.
Click to expand...

Considering it was wikileaks that originally gave that information to the NYT's I would have to say that yes the rules would apply.

PS: if you don't believe me about the senators wanting to change the espionage law go google/bing "shield act".
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I believe he was referring to Manning. However, he has not been charged with treason. As best I can find out, the maximum penalty he faces is 52 years in prison.
Click to expand...

What a shame. He should be charged with it.
 
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"?
Click to expand...
The main difference is that the government has no right in covering up there operations. They are supposedly here to "protect and serve". How can you accurately say they are indeed serving us if they don't say what they are doing? You should not treat an individual like the government.
 
hallam said:
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
Click to expand...

Charging a foreign national with TREASON is absurd.

But, I enjoyed your facepalm fail.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah and Playboy is head and shoulders above Wikileaks.
 
hallam said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here is one instance where Wikileaks did just that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Sunshine Press is something Wikileaks operates and that video includes what I am sure you will notice is commentary on the information. Also, being a data warehouse does not mean they are not a press organization. Really they are a news aggregator of sorts like the Drudge Reports. None of the material is their own really, but often they do provide some unique news coverage as sites like the Drudge Report do on occasion. Also, their behavior with the most recent leaks in contacting news organizations could be seen as akin to the AP's practice of disseminating news stories from members news organizations to other members and even outside news organizations.
 
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?
Click to expand...
I don't know why they wouldn't be part of the press. It seems to me all you need is information and a way to distribute it.
 
I forget the name of the book I was reading, but IIRC it was written by a well known reporter, and in it he advocated the idea of the press being an additional branch of government, with the primary responsibility of keeping the public informed of everything that the other branches are doing..on a daily basis...or real time transparency.
 
Of course they are. WL is doing exactly what the press is supposed to do. Disseminating information to keep governments in check. That is the exact task for which the press exists, and why the press is guaranteed freedom in the first amendment. To claim that WL is not part of the press is to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a free press.

Look at it this way, publishing Watergate was free press. It was the uncovering of a criminal act by an elected official. That's exactly what WL is doing.
 
WL is exposing us to hard truths, question is, what will be done with it? I suspect we have already become so jaded that the stench from WL will soon blow away and we will forget about it.
 
UtahBill said:
I forget the name of the book I was reading, but IIRC it was written by a well known reporter, and in it he advocated the idea of the press being an additional branch of government, with the primary responsibility of keeping the public informed of everything that the other branches are doing..on a daily basis...or real time transparency.
Click to expand...

Our founding fathers considered the Press to be the watchdog of the government. So in a sense they are.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Well, that was easy enough:

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



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.
Click to expand...

The issue with this Catz is I believe the term "publication" and how broad you want to make it.

If an online site is considered a publication, then based on what you said "Debate Politics" is part of "The Press". Its something that's put forward that acts as a vehicle for the dissimination of opinion and information.

Does that make us all journalists?
 
Zyphlin said:
The issue with this Catz is I believe the term "publication" and how broad you want to make it.

If an online site is considered a publication, then based on what you said "Debate Politics" is part of "The Press". Its something that's put forward that acts as a vehicle for the dissimination of opinion and information.

Does that make us all journalists?
Click to expand...

Posts on Debate Politics would certainly be protected. We don't have complete freedom of speech here, of course, because we are subject to the rules of the site. But without rules by the site owners, the government couldn't step in and censor us.

I think we're so busy being mad at Wiki that we fail to see the bigger picture. Our government completely FAILED. Who is being taken to task for that truth? The usual answer....nobody.
 
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...

Yeah, well, good luck trying to get ANY European nation to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty anywhere. :lol: :lol:
 
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...

Manning did, but Wikileaks didn't. Furthermore, Assange isn't a US citizen and has no obligation to honor our laws. If he was, then damn near every government agent here from other countries would be under indictment for sharing discussions had here with their governments or any other governments.

By agent I do not mean "spies," per se, but as we've learned many level of government representatives collect information and opinions on each other.
 
Last edited:
As for the OP's question, yes, I think Wikileaks can absolutely qualify as "the press". They don't really do anything different than a normal newspaper would do, except that they're less scared of the consequences of publishing stuff that governments may not like, seeing as they operate under no government at all.
 
Redress said:
Another question: does US protection of a free press include foreign websites? The claim has been made repeatedly that Assange is not American, and therefore not bound by US law. Does he then also not get the same protections of US law?
Click to expand...

Assange is Australian. The website is currently hosted in Switzerland. Both countries guarantee freedom of the press. It really doesn't matter if American law applies or not. I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean should the US disregard its own laws in case you get your hands on Assange?
 
MaggieD said:
Posts on Debate Politics would certainly be protected. We don't have complete freedom of speech here, of course, because we are subject to the rules of the site. But without rules by the site owners, the government couldn't step in and censor us.
Click to expand...

However Free Speech is different than Freedom of the Press. I wasn't necessarily asking if our rights to free speech exist on DP, but whether or not DP would be considered part of "The Press"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom