Financial woes may close WikiLeaks

[Admiral Yi]

If it was the NYT then one assumes in that hypothetical that the NYT would be following recognized established journalistic ethics and thus the reputational and legal risks of helping to fund it would be significantly different.

What statutes define journalistic ethics?

[crazy canuck]

If it was the NYT then one assumes in that hypothetical that the NYT would be following recognized established journalistic ethics and thus the reputational and legal risks of helping to fund it would be significantly different.

What statutes define journalistic ethics?

What makes you think there are any statutes that define such ethics?

[Admiral Yi]

What makes you think there are any statutes that define such ethics?

The fact that there are legal risks to doing business with an organization that does not follow them.

[crazy canuck]

What makes you think there are any statutes that define such ethics?

The fact that there are legal risks to doing business with an organization that does not follow them.

Ah, the Yi treatment.  Berkut set out a scenario there could be legal risk.  Such a risk would be diminished if the information was disseminated in a manner protected by the US Constutition.  As I understand it WikiLeaks does not attract such protection.

My point was the reputational risk.  I am not sure why you think the same reputational risk applies to dealing with WikiLeaks and the NYT.

[Admiral Yi]

Ah, the Yi treatment.  Berkut set out a scenario there could be legal risk.  Such a risk would be diminished if the information was disseminated in a manner protected by the US Constutition.  As I understand it WikiLeaks does not attract such protection.

My point was the reputational risk.  I am not sure why you think the same reputational risk applies to dealing with WikiLeaks and the NYT.

Right, the Yi treatment of thinking that what a person posts is what he posts.  Damn that Yi.  If you don't mean legal risk don't type it.

I think the same argument applies to reputational risk.  If Huffington Post were to publish something that made them very unpopular to the majority of Americans and Visa and Paypal suspended payments to it we would probably scream bloody murder.

[Berkut]

Yi raises an interesting point, and I think it comes down to whether or not you consider Wikileaks to be "the press". I do not.

They are just some guys willing to publish classified material on the web.

But it does raise some interesting questions about what constitutes the press in the internet age.

[garbon]

we would probably scream bloody murder.

I'd be gleeful.

[Admiral Yi]

I'd be gleeful.

You don't count.  You don't have any principles.

[garbon]

I'd be gleeful.

You don't count.  You don't have any principles.

[crazy canuck]

Yi raises an interesting point, and I think it comes down to whether or not you consider Wikileaks to be "the press". I do not.

They are just some guys willing to publish classified material on the web.

But it does raise some interesting questions about what constitutes the press in the internet age.

I would defer to the Americans knowledgeable about the application of their constitution but I find it difficult to understand how dealing with a recognized media outlet that is certainly protected by the US constitution is in any way similar to dealing with an offshore internet site run by someone who is avoiding US law - even if that internet site could in some loose way be considered the "press".

[The Minsky Moment]

The Espionage Act gives the government the power to punish persons responsible for obtaining certain kinds of confidential information, as well as persons conspiring to achieve that end, where there is an intent or reason to believe the information may be used to harm the United States.   In the event someone happens to get a hold of confidential information, whether in violation of the Act or not, and passes that on to a media outlet, which then published the information, it is settled law in the United States that the government cannot restrain publication.  Assuming the media outlet in question was the passive recipient of information, there also is no basis I am aware of under US law for criminal or civil sanction. 

The potential problem that Assange may face under US law is the argument that he was not the passive recipient of information by rather an active participant in a conspiracy to obtain such information, or even in some cases a primary actor himself.  If that is so, he could face exposure under the Espionage Act.

More generally, I agree with the thrust of Berkut's comments that regardless of the legal framework, there is a difference between placing trust in a traditional media organization to make responsible choices and placing the same degree of trust in a offshore website run by a single idiosyncratic gadfly.  A cynic might point to the vulnerability of the former to undue government pressure; US history since WW2 suggests otherwise, however.  What is true is that a traditional newspaper or media outlet is more likely to have the resources and editorial structures in place to take basic steps like excerpting personal information and other particularly sensitive matters without compromising the informational value to the public.

To the extent that US law is permissive towards publication, it is important to recognize the lack of clear rooting of that permissiveness in the Constitution.  The principal Supreme Court case on the question - US v. NYT -- had 3 dissenting justices.  The swing votes were provided by 2 justices who wrote a concurring opinion stating that the Executive could not enjoin publication where Congress had not authorized it, but left open the question of whether Congress could authorize it under the Constitution.  There is a real risk that if more wikileaks type events occur that Congress will be pushed into enacting more far reaching restrictions on the press, which could be upheld by a conservative Supreme Court.

[DGuller]

Citizens United case shows that freedom of speech is safe with the conservative justices.

[The Minsky Moment]

Citizens United case shows that freedom of speech is safe with the conservative justices.

[Maximus]

Seems the definition of "the press" is pretty arbitrary. What makes wikileaks not "the press" but NYT is? Given that "the press" is specifically given protection by the constitution it would seem important to clearly define what it consists of.

[Valmy]

Yi raises an interesting point, and I think it comes down to whether or not you consider Wikileaks to be "the press". I do not.

I think this is where we primarily disagree.  I just see wikileaks as a smaller part of the media and thus part of "the press".  The possibility that they were not "the press" had never occured to me.

Sorry for not answering your previous post.  I will get to it.