# The Obama Administration and Freedom of Speech and the Press **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-administration-and-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press/564456 "2010-12-17T01:56:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-administration-and-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press/564456/1 "2010-12-17T01:56:30Z")
> [@Amy Davidson](#): > > And yet none of this is as disturbing as the report, in today’s Times, that the Justice Department is trying to come up with some theory that will allow them to prosecute Assange for espionage. The idea is that he would count as what the Times calls “a conspirator in the leak” if the government could show that he had spoken to Bradley Manning, the soldier alleged to have taken the files, before everything was downloaded and gave him “a secure server” to put it on. Can someone explain how that is different from a reporter cultivating a government source—for years, maybe—and then, when he wants to hand you something, designating a certain P.O. Box or flower pot or hole in a tree for him to leave it in or under? Glenn Greenwald is right in saying that this is a really alarming theory that could be used against any number of journalists, including ones at this magazine. > **[Bail for Assange](https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bail-for-assange)** > > A British judge has granted bail to Julian Assange, denying a British government appeal that that he not do so. (Whether the appeal was made on behalf of, … I find the idea of prosecuting Assange to be very dangerous for the reasons that Davidson outlines. If Assange can be convicted, then Bob Woodward can be convicted. Basically, any person who reports on the State Department, the Defense Department, or the military can be convicted. Reporting on these organization involves developing inside sources that will leak classified information. Is the Obama administration properly respecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press? > **[U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks (Published 2010)](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?hp)** > > Prosecutors trying to build a case against Julian Assange for his role in the release of classified documents are seeking evidence that he helped acquire government files. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-administration-and-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press/564456/2 "2010-12-17T02:09:50Z")
I’ll note here that while the Supreme Court denied prior restraint of publication of the Pentagon Papers, it did not bar prosecution of Ellsberg, The Washington Post, or The New York Times after the fact. Ellsberg got off on a mistrial, and the government chose not to prosecute the newspapers. While I, in general, support the mission of WikiLeaks, Manning, Assange, et al are going to have to take their chances in court. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-administration-and-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press/564456/3 "2010-12-17T02:25:48Z")
Yes, a stronger Supreme Court decision–one that only prevents prior restraint, but also prosecution–would be nice. But short of that, administrations should not attempt to prosecute people who hold the government to account. Freedom of the press is essentially meaningless if people can be imprisoned for exercising that freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-administration-and-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press/564456/4 "2010-12-17T03:31:56Z")
Holding the government to account for wrongdoing is one thing. Simply asserting that a private individual has the right to decide that a government cannot do anything out of the public eye is another. There is a reason why intelligence analysts, such as the guy who leaked the stuff to Assange, are sworn to keep their work private. Not everything that government wants to keep confidential is in the public interest to be made open. I think it is rather important that nothing that has come out in the Wikileaks stuff is particularly embarrassing, or evidence of any crime or really anything untoward at all. Some diplomats think that some heads of state are twits. There is considerable concern that North Korea and Iran are dangerous. Gee, there’s a shock. If you think there is evidence of a crime being committed or covered up, what do you think that is? Hilary Clinton wants the State Department to find out what they can about the situations around the world. So? I don’t know legally what, if anything, can be done to prosecute Assange. The intelligence analyst who leaked it - throw the book at him. And if something unfortunate were to happen to Mr. Assange, such that he would be sorry for leaking information he had no business seeing - well, I suppose I could come up with a reason to feel bad about that, if I cared to. Regards, Shodan