In 2010, WikiLeaks published graphic footage from a United States military helicopter as it killed over a dozen innocent civilians (including two Reuters journalists) in a Baghdad suburb. Later that year, the site published hundreds of thousands of classified documents pertaining to the U.S. military’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the help of former U.S. Army private turned whistleblower Chelsea Manning. While the site was founded in 2006, the magnitude of these leaks eclipsed its predecessors and catapulted the site — and its founder, Julian Assange — into worldwide renown.
The leaks completely reshaped public perception of the United States’ already contentious forever war in the Middle East. WikiLeaks gave the press and the public unprecedented insight into U.S. military operations, particularly its indifference to civilian casualties. Consequently, WikiLeaks and Assange came to the forefront of a new aspect of journalism. By revealing previously hidden information with the help of whistleblowers and hackers, Assange instituted a new check on state power through forced transparency. His operations set public fervor and unbridled government entities on a collision course and made Assange a martyr for a new brand of investigative journalism that tests the limits of press freedom.
Assange endured over a decade of prosecution for orchestrating the leaks that disrupted the media landscape of the 2010s, spending five years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London followed by five more years in the United Kingdom’s Belmarsh Prison while awaiting extradition to the United States under the Espionage Act and received a plea deal on June 19. After pleading guilty to one count of breaching the Espionage Act, Assange finally walked free on June 24, 2024.
The Espionage Act of 1917 was originally intended to protect information relating to national security during war. While valid in principle, the abuse of this law comes at the detriment of journalists attempting to gain vital insight into government activity with the Freedom of Information Act.
While the plea deal saves Assange from further imprisonment, it leaves the door wide open for the United States to persecute future controversial journalists in the same way. To keep state power in check, journalists must be afforded their First Amendment rights, even when it is uncomfortable for the U.S. government to have their wrongdoing revealed in such a manner. Assange began a digital truth-seeking wave that has since exploded in the age of social media, and future journalists that expose government crimes should not be forced to endure the same unjust treatment as Assange.
Assange’s publishing of classified information should be a form of protected speech. The First Amendment enshrines Freedom of the Press as a basic right afforded to all in the United States who wish to express their beliefs through media. A free press functions as a protector of the public’s right to know the affairs of its government and is essential to the continuation of democracy and government accountability. When classified documents are leaked to the public, as was the case in the 2010 release of “Collateral Murder,” the press operates fully within its constitutional rights, regardless of the U.S. government’s displeasure. Without such protections, the government is free to censor whatever information it deems unsuitable for public consumption.
The U.S. government’s crackdown on whistleblowers and journalists that publish leaked information has grown more intense over the last decade. Beyond unconstitutional surveillance, the Espionage Act has become the U.S. government’s primary weapon to attack journalists and their sources. Both journalists and their sources — whistleblowers — operate in the interest of the public by revealing painful secrets, and so they both deserve equal protections under the First Amendment.
There is a great difference between a foreign entity harnessing spies to reveal U.S. government strategies and a whistleblower leaking details of U.S. war crimes, the mass surveillance of its citizens or other breaches the public has a right to be made aware of. It is our tax dollars that enable our government to commit these crimes, and thus whistleblowers and journalists that release such details to our news feeds must remain free. Manning, who leaked thousands of military documents to Assange, was sentenced to an unprecedented 35 years in prison in 2013. After enduring years of unjust treatment in military prison, her sentence was commuted by Barack Obama in the final days of his presidency. Manning leaked the documents in the interest of the American people, hoping to expose war crimes and do her part for the common good. She should never have gone to jail in the first place.
Rather than ruthlessly prosecuting all government whistleblowers and journalists, the government should go to far greater lengths to take into account the context and manner in which classified information is leaked to the public. When done by foreign entities to undermine U.S. security interests, leaking classified documents should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. When done for the common good, it upholds an informed society and a just government. Without such leaks, the government has free reign to commit whatever crimes it feels are justified. Given the importance of freedom of the press, Assange’s 12 years of prosecution cannot become a new normal for journalists hoping to publish sensitive information that highlights government wrongdoing.
Maximilian Schenke is an Opinion Columnist who writes about whatever is on his mind, but typically focuses on politics. He loves receiving criticism or otherwise at maxsch@umich.edu.
The post No free democracy without free journalism appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply