Financial woes may close WikiLeaks

[Sheilbh]

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.

Agreed.

I have no problem with an official secrets act that would make publication of certain documents or state secrets illegal.  That should be accompanied by a robust freedom of information system.  I find that less troublesome than protecting speech but not for everyone.  Which would seem to be the consequence of saying the NYT and WikiLeaks should be treated differently.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

The distinction between "press" and "not press" is not critical here.  Assange's potential exposure stems not from the fact that he isn't operating a printing press, but from the fact that he is accused of actively conspiring to steal national security secrets.

[Admiral Yi]

The distinction between "press" and "not press" is not critical here.  Assange's potential exposure stems not from the fact that he isn't operating a printing press, but from the fact that he is accused of actively conspiring to steal national security secrets.

This post seems to contradict some of your earlier (and repeated) references to WikiLeaks lack of editorial responsbility, ethics blah blah blah.

[The Minsky Moment]

This post seems to contradict some of your earlier (and repeated) references to WikiLeaks lack of editorial responsbility, ethics blah blah blah.

How so?
I think you may be confusing a descriptive statement about what the US law framework is and the specific case against Assange with presciptive statements about why wikileaks is a malign development.

[Slargos]

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.

A very important question which is the subject of substantial debate in Scandinavia.

[grumbler]

What statutes define journalistic ethics?

Are ethics defined only by statute?

[Admiral Yi]

What statutes define journalistic ethics?

Are ethics defined only by statute?

Ethics are defined by a number of things. Statute does not appear to be one of them.

[grumbler]

What statutes define journalistic ethics?

Are ethics defined only by statute?

Ethics are defined by a number of things. Statute does not appear to be one of them.

Then you start to understand why your question was meaningless, I hope.

[Admiral Yi]

Keep hope alive.

[Sheilbh]

Ethics are defined by a number of things. Statute does not appear to be one of them.

It isn't statutory but we've got a common law definition of 'responsible journalism' that can be used as a libel defence.  The government are trying to put that into statute.

[grumbler]

It isn't statutory but we've got a common law definition of 'responsible journalism' that can be used as a libel defence.  The government are trying to put that into statute.

Same here.

[crazy canuck]

It isn't statutory but we've got a common law definition of 'responsible journalism' that can be used as a libel defence.  The government are trying to put that into statute.

Same here.

As I understand it the US has nothing similar to the responsible journalism defence.  In the US claims of Libel are much easier to defend because the Plaintiff must prove malice.  See the USSC decision in Sullivan.

The law in the UK and Canada is quite different.  The Defendant had to prove truth or a qualified priviledge.  The defence of qualified priviledge could be defeated by malice on the part of the Defendant.

That changed in both the UK - in Reynolds and in Canada in Grant v. Torstar when the Courts developed a new common law defense of Responsible Journalism which takes into account a number of factors but the upshot of the test is whether the media outlet used reasonable efforts to check out the story before running it.  In the course of establishing the Responsible Jounalism defence the Sullivan approach was expressly rejected.

There may be US decisions that have adopted a Responsible Journalism test since Reynolds and Torstar.  If there is such a decision I would appreciate it if someone could link it.  It would be a rare case of the USSC rejecting their own test in favour of a Commonwealth test.

[The Minsky Moment]

If there is such a decision I would appreciate it if someone could link it.  It would be a rare case of the USSC rejecting their own test in favour of a Commonwealth test.

Not so in this area, and in fact the legislatures (state and federal) have acted to insulate the US from foreign libel judgments.

[grumbler]

As I understand it the US has nothing similar to the responsible journalism defence.  In the US claims of Libel are much easier to defend because the Plaintiff must prove malice.  See the USSC decision in Sullivan.

I don't believe that this is correct.  I believe that journalists can defend themselves from charges of slander, libel, invasion of privacy, or other challenges to publications/broadcasts by asserting that the journalists actions were within the scope of actions protected by freedom of the press (i.e. that they were acting as responsible journalists).  This is a common-law concept. 

[crazy canuck]

As I understand it the US has nothing similar to the responsible journalism defence.  In the US claims of Libel are much easier to defend because the Plaintiff must prove malice.  See the USSC decision in Sullivan.

I don't believe that this is correct.  I believe that journalists can defend themselves from charges of slander, libel, invasion of privacy, or other challenges to publications/broadcasts by asserting that the journalists actions were within the scope of actions protected by freedom of the press (i.e. that they were acting as responsible journalists).  This is a common-law concept.

The Sullivan case engaged both freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  The USSC held that actual malice must be proven in order to protect both those constitutional rights.  In Canada the Constitutional rights of the media are protected by the application of the Responsible Journalism test which, as I said, is something quite different.