It was widely expected that today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on WikiLeaks would center around ways to legalize the censorship of WikiLeaks and other media outlets for covering the embarrassing release of State Department cables. The reality was quite a bit more subdued.
Instead, the committee heard from a number of experts that there were major constitutional issues related to any possible move against WikiLeaks, and warnings against “rash” actions against the whistleblower. Committee members likewise repeatedly cited the importance of the First Amendment, a refreshing attitude considering most recent comment has centered around jailing and or assassinating WikiLeaks members.
At the same time the Justice Department was there, doing what the Justice Department does, which is arguing for massive increases in power. Today, they insisted that charging WikiLeaks would have no impact on freedom of the press because they are “fundamentally different” from the traditional media. Of course neither the First Amendment nor federal law makes any distinction between traditional media or anyone else, and freedom of the press doesn’t simply mean freedom of the traditional, approved-of press.
Despite officials being riled up about the WikiLeaks, Vice President Joe Biden also reported today that the leaks have done “no substantive damage” to US foreign policy. Quite the contrary, he insists only that some are “embarrassing.” This too may give the House pause, as it seems like dramatically curtailing personal freedom to spare Biden et al some embarrassment is going to be a tough sell.
"Of course neither the First Amendment nor federal law makes any distinction between traditional media or anyone else, and freedom of the press doesn’t simply mean freedom of the traditional, approved-of press."
Jason you're one of the few people making this point and it is HUGE! freedom of the press does not mean some licensed and approved media outlet only. If it did then neither Benjamin Franklin nor Tom Paine would have been allowed to publish. Keep hitting this point Jason!
I currently am re-reading Orwell's 1984, and it is uncanny how similar the book is to the latest US regime (actually several of the latest regimes). Especially when it comes to the so called "Department of Justice", or Miniluv in Newspeak.
Could it be that the US regime is using 1984 as it's manifesto?
You ain't kiddin' – I keep thinking that "1984" has become the instruction manual for a lot of this regimes.
1- Is not a question of being or presenting a news agency or being a reporter which concludes the freedom of speech.., if that was the case.., US constitutions would specifically mention that: “freedom of speech is only for those who are reporter or a news service“.., however, if government is not afraid of its manipulated and or its dishonesty then the truth about the government deceptions would pure into societies by the free news press or agencies where the civilized human societies would not need a underground organization as Weakilieaks to publish the deceptions of a government.
3- The dilemma that US justice department or the GOP is creating is a political and very well motivated argument in that regard.., indicating that President Obama or GOP policies are not about democracy but rather controlling who says what and who can say certain thing and whom not. If this argument is about freedom of speech and who authorized to say or publish the facts and who is not then we need to get on our knee and pry and say from our heart “god bless America” she truly needs it.
That dang Constitution still getting in the way of Fascism in spite the outstanding job that Bush did – and Obama has continued to do – in using it as toilet paper.
Today, they insisted that charging WikiLeaks would have no impact on freedom of the press because they are “fundamentally different” from the traditional media.
Oh, the State Dept. knows that if they repeat that meme enough times, it will eventually catch and become the truth. At that point, they'll be ready to strike.