|
RonMazorFirstPaper 4 - 04 Apr 2022 - Main.RonMazor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper2012" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | Wikileaks and the First Amendment
-- By RonMazor - 01 May 2012
Wikileaks as Journalism
One could paint Wikileaks as an irresponsible peddler of secret gossip. Yet, back in 2010, their initial video reveal spoke to a higher goal—to shed light on perceived abuses of US conduct in a war which held great public relevance but was shielded from public view. The “CollateralMurder” controversy made the major news cycles because its import was that, on a daily basis, our military was behaving with a callousness to life that departed from the laws of war—conduct that the US public would abhor but for their ignorance. The knife twist: that US investigators failed to censure conduct that appeared little more than casual slaughter, and government secrecy meant that the public was incapable of calling the military to task or grasping the pervasiveness of the problem.
The video Wikileaks released was a powerful suggestion that the internal checks and balances of the US military were broken—a scary thought of national and international significance. It purportedly dealt with the 2007 death of two Reuters employees and a number of civilians in Iraq. The bulk of the release came in the form of US Army gun camera footage from a patrol of Apache helicopters. However, Wikileaks exerted a measure of editorial control, introducing background for the footage via narrative slides, highlighting certain visual cues to demonstrate that the dead and wounded may have been reporters and civilians, replaying impactful audio and visual segments for emotional impact, and cutting down the length of the original video for a tighter presentation. While the actual encounter involves a level of nuance and uncertainty that helps explain why the military investigation cleared the personnel involved, the Wikileaks video pushes the notion that the incident is a stark example of wrongdoing. Still, Wikileaks does not fabricate its narrative—its story remains true to the facts of the event. In this respect, Wikileaks' production looks a lot like opinionated investigative journalism.
Despite your first
sentence, I don't see anyone who is arguing that WikiLeaks isn't
journalism. Whether journalists may knowingly distribute classified
material, and beyond that, may conspire with others to distribute
classified material, are quite different
questions.
Wikileaks as Protectible
Whether or not a massive infodump of classified material is protected behavior bears questioning. It can be argued that Wikileaks' initial reveal presented a level of narrative and journalistic sensibility that was absent from later releases. But is “narrative” really the essential test for constitutional protection? Though “the press” has become synonymous with journalism in modern parlance, on a basic level, a press reproduces documents. If a publisher cannot print damning secret information of the government—of secret government surveillance, torture, or killing—then the core adversarial nature of the press is defanged. Indeed, this was the very thrust of the controversy in New York Times v. United States—where the government failed in its attempt to enjoin the New York Times from reproducing the classified “Pentagon Papers” they had obtained. The “Pentagon Papers” seem particularly analogous to Wikileaks' later dealings with diplomatic cables—both involved extensive classified material whose release carried a degree of harm to national security interests—the two differ mainly in scope. However, the size of a release was not a factor the Supreme Court considered relevant in New York Times.
Again, why the point
about the volume of material? That's not relevant to the conspiracy
to distribute classified material, if a prosecution should be
brought. It may be relevant to the degree of public harm resulting
from the release, but I have read no one who supposes, let alone
argues, that First Amendment protection is altered by the volume of
material.
I probably shouldn't be surprised in a piece written hastily to get
graduation clearance, but there's no clear theme here. If the
material involved hadn't been subject to security classification, no
one doubts that the First Amendment would have protected its
publication. If the First Amendment alone sufficed to immunize its
publication, on the other hand, security classification would cease
to be meaningful at all.
New York Times v. United States is irrelevant: this is not a prior
restraint question. Punishment post-publication for criminal
violation of classification does not raise the same First Amendment
issues, and is relatively routine.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
RonMazorFirstPaper 2 - 06 May 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Wikileaks and the First Amendment
-- By RonMazor - 01 May 2012 | | | The video Wikileaks released was a powerful suggestion that the internal checks and balances of the US military were broken—a scary thought of national and international significance. It purportedly dealt with the 2007 death of two Reuters employees and a number of civilians in Iraq. The bulk of the release came in the form of US Army gun camera footage from a patrol of Apache helicopters. However, Wikileaks exerted a measure of editorial control, introducing background for the footage via narrative slides, highlighting certain visual cues to demonstrate that the dead and wounded may have been reporters and civilians, replaying impactful audio and visual segments for emotional impact, and cutting down the length of the original video for a tighter presentation. While the actual encounter involves a level of nuance and uncertainty that helps explain why the military investigation cleared the personnel involved, the Wikileaks video pushes the notion that the incident is a stark example of wrongdoing. Still, Wikileaks does not fabricate its narrative—its story remains true to the facts of the event. In this respect, Wikileaks' production looks a lot like opinionated investigative journalism. | |
<
< | Wikileaks as Protectable
Whether or not a massive infodump of classified material is protected behavior bears questioning. It can be argued that Wikileaks' initial reveal presented a level of narrative and journalistic sensibility that was absent from later releases. But is “narrative” really the essential test for constitutional protection? Though “the press” has become synonymous with journalism in modern parlance, on a basic level, a press reproduces documents. If a publisher cannot print damning secret information of the government—of secret government surveillance, torture, or killing—then the core adversarial nature of the press is defanged. Indeed, this was the very thrust of the controversy in New York Times v. United States—where the government failed in its attempt to enjoin the New York Times from reproducing the classified “Pentagon Papers” they had obtained. The “Pentagon Papers” seem particularly analogous to Wikileaks' later dealings with diplomatic cables—both involved extensive classified material whose release carried a degree of harm to national security interests—the two differ mainly in scope. However, the size of a release was not a factor the Supreme Court considered relevant in New York Times.
Subsub 1
Subsub 2 | >
> | Despite your first
sentence, I don't see anyone who is arguing that WikiLeaks isn't
journalism. Whether journalists may knowingly distribute classified
material, and beyond that, may conspire with others to distribute
classified material, are quite different
questions. | | | | |
<
< | Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: | >
> | Wikileaks as Protectible
Whether or not a massive infodump of classified material is protected behavior bears questioning. It can be argued that Wikileaks' initial reveal presented a level of narrative and journalistic sensibility that was absent from later releases. But is “narrative” really the essential test for constitutional protection? Though “the press” has become synonymous with journalism in modern parlance, on a basic level, a press reproduces documents. If a publisher cannot print damning secret information of the government—of secret government surveillance, torture, or killing—then the core adversarial nature of the press is defanged. Indeed, this was the very thrust of the controversy in New York Times v. United States—where the government failed in its attempt to enjoin the New York Times from reproducing the classified “Pentagon Papers” they had obtained. The “Pentagon Papers” seem particularly analogous to Wikileaks' later dealings with diplomatic cables—both involved extensive classified material whose release carried a degree of harm to national security interests—the two differ mainly in scope. However, the size of a release was not a factor the Supreme Court considered relevant in New York Times. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Again, why the point
about the volume of material? That's not relevant to the conspiracy
to distribute classified material, if a prosecution should be
brought. It may be relevant to the degree of public harm resulting
from the release, but I have read no one who supposes, let alone
argues, that First Amendment protection is altered by the volume of
material.
I probably shouldn't be surprised in a piece written hastily to get
graduation clearance, but there's no clear theme here. If the
material involved hadn't been subject to security classification, no
one doubts that the First Amendment would have protected its
publication. If the First Amendment alone sufficed to immunize its
publication, on the other hand, security classification would cease
to be meaningful at all.
New York Times v. United States is irrelevant: this is not a prior
restraint question. Punishment post-publication for criminal
violation of classification does not raise the same First Amendment
issues, and is relatively routine. | | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | >
> | |
|
|
RonMazorFirstPaper 1 - 01 May 2012 - Main.RonMazor
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Wikileaks and the First Amendment
-- By RonMazor - 01 May 2012
Wikileaks as Journalism
One could paint Wikileaks as an irresponsible peddler of secret gossip. Yet, back in 2010, their initial video reveal spoke to a higher goal—to shed light on perceived abuses of US conduct in a war which held great public relevance but was shielded from public view. The “CollateralMurder” controversy made the major news cycles because its import was that, on a daily basis, our military was behaving with a callousness to life that departed from the laws of war—conduct that the US public would abhor but for their ignorance. The knife twist: that US investigators failed to censure conduct that appeared little more than casual slaughter, and government secrecy meant that the public was incapable of calling the military to task or grasping the pervasiveness of the problem.
The video Wikileaks released was a powerful suggestion that the internal checks and balances of the US military were broken—a scary thought of national and international significance. It purportedly dealt with the 2007 death of two Reuters employees and a number of civilians in Iraq. The bulk of the release came in the form of US Army gun camera footage from a patrol of Apache helicopters. However, Wikileaks exerted a measure of editorial control, introducing background for the footage via narrative slides, highlighting certain visual cues to demonstrate that the dead and wounded may have been reporters and civilians, replaying impactful audio and visual segments for emotional impact, and cutting down the length of the original video for a tighter presentation. While the actual encounter involves a level of nuance and uncertainty that helps explain why the military investigation cleared the personnel involved, the Wikileaks video pushes the notion that the incident is a stark example of wrongdoing. Still, Wikileaks does not fabricate its narrative—its story remains true to the facts of the event. In this respect, Wikileaks' production looks a lot like opinionated investigative journalism.
Wikileaks as Protectable
Whether or not a massive infodump of classified material is protected behavior bears questioning. It can be argued that Wikileaks' initial reveal presented a level of narrative and journalistic sensibility that was absent from later releases. But is “narrative” really the essential test for constitutional protection? Though “the press” has become synonymous with journalism in modern parlance, on a basic level, a press reproduces documents. If a publisher cannot print damning secret information of the government—of secret government surveillance, torture, or killing—then the core adversarial nature of the press is defanged. Indeed, this was the very thrust of the controversy in New York Times v. United States—where the government failed in its attempt to enjoin the New York Times from reproducing the classified “Pentagon Papers” they had obtained. The “Pentagon Papers” seem particularly analogous to Wikileaks' later dealings with diplomatic cables—both involved extensive classified material whose release carried a degree of harm to national security interests—the two differ mainly in scope. However, the size of a release was not a factor the Supreme Court considered relevant in New York Times.
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|