In this week's Tom the Dancing Bug, Ruben Bolling brings the Wikileaks case into focus: Although the Nixon White House attempted to keep the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the Supreme Court ruled against them. And, as he notes, there is a long established tradition that the free press is permitted to publish leaked information.
I wish he hadn't included Daniel Ellsberg in his role of honor here, because Ellsberg was a leaker and not a journalist, and would likely have gone to prison for release of the Pentagon Papers had the White House not completely bollixed the case with illegal wiretaps, burglaries and plots against Ellsberg as well as an attempt to bribe the judge handling his case. Much of what we remember as "Watergate" had nothing to do with the break-in of the Democratic Headquarters and a lot to do with the Pentagon Papers, in which the "publisher" was the New York Times and Ellsberg was the "leaker." His inclusion here is a blunder, but, since he is only cited in passing, I still like the overall cartoon.
Bolling's major point remains intact: Publishing leaked documents is protected.
The question is, who is a publisher these days? Is Assange a publisher of these documents, or simply the middleman handing classified information over to the Times and the Guardian? Assange has exercised journalistic discretion in choosing the information to release, from the massive trove (allegedly) provided to him by Bradley Manning. He has also made this select information available to the public on-line, beyond simply handing it over to the Times and the Guardian. Does the fact that he didn't print it on paper and charge money for people to read it mean he is not, then, a "publisher"?
Another potential argument is that, unlike the situation where Ellsberg made the initial move to provide the NYTimes with the Pentagon Papers, Assange actively solicits leaked information. But Woodward and Bernstein also actively sought leaks and didn't receive their information over the transom. It can also be argued that the Times established a reputation which encouraged Ellsberg to make them the recipient of his documents, which is essentially what Assange did, albeit more actively.
It's clear that Bolling considers Assange a publisher and not a leaker. Will the courts agree? And if they do not, where does that leave Ariana Huffington, who is also guilty of not putting the information she receives on paper?
Comments