Legal Encounters

The United States Justice Department thought about pressing espionage charges against WikiLeaks after its initial leaks but legal precedents dictated otherwise. Prior, in 1971, an analogous case occurred in which the New York Times was summoned to court by the U.S. government for publishing the “Pentagon Papers,” a detailed report of the United States’ involvement and motives in the Vietnam War. The court reached a verdict, favoring freedom of press above the government’s call for secrecy (Miller, 2011). This case set an important precedent which would later protect WikiLeaks from legal action by the U.S. through the Espionage Act of 1917. The U.S. government realized this and opted to provide a patch for the loophole by proposing the Shield Bill instead of taking the website to court. This proposition would amend the Espionage Act of 1917 and make it unlawful for anybody to deliberately publish classified information “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States” (Stone, 2011, p.105). Although this bill appears to cover all the bases, there are some cases in which the bill cannot be applied. The Shield Bill would be able to be used against government employees who disclose secret material, but would infringe upon First Amendment liberties if attempted to be used against individuals who may wish to distribute said material after is has been released (Stone, 2011, p.105). This could result in some future problems for the United States regarding national security should the wrong classified files leak and circulate. A suggestion, should the Shield Bill pass, is that the Act come into effect only when the United States’ wellbeing is put in impending danger. For now WikiLeaks and its whistle-blowers seem immune to legal consequences in the United States of America. With the government’s limited options on how to deal with WikiLeaks and the numerous news articles that follow its disclosures, there are some thoughts of increasing censorship of media outlets. This, thought by many to be unethical, is something the government may consider.

Ethical Issues

WikiLeaks has thus far remained unscathed from legal battles, but has caused governments to consider other ways to quiet the site down. Floyd Abrams, a veteran First Amendment lawyer, believes stricter censorship is a possibility. Mr. Abrams makes a great point in saying that, often times “democratic countries may change…their attitudes towards freedom of expression in an effort to stop what they view as harmful revelation of secret information” (Lunt, 2011). Censorship of media is highly unethical but governments haven’t shied away from doing so in the past. In 1978, United States’ Congress passed the Sedition Act, making it illegal to criticize the President or Congress. Prior to this, during the Civil War, the government shut down newspapers for their critical opinions of the President’s policies (Stone, 2011, p.106). Censorship is a powerful tool, but from an ethical stand point, it is not an option. Instead of from the government’s side, my belief is that the ethical decision actually lies with the news organizations that run WikiLeaks’ stories. My thoughts are that it is these organizations’ moral duty to publish proper content that benefits its readers by informing them. By running WikiLeaks’ findings, these outlets are making information widespread that is deemed dependable not necessarily accurate. Paul Greenberg, director of the journalism program in the Tulane School of Continuing Studies, puts it well by saying, “As a journalist I believe the information should be out there; as an ethicist, I worry about the fact we don’t know if the material is accurate” (Rivet, 2011). Freedom of speech is a chief right given to us, so why not use it properly and honorably. Discussions of limiting this freedom in any way would cause social uproars.

Social Issues

When talks of shutting down WikiLeaks began, people emerged on both sides vehemently arguing their position. On the one hand, people felt that it was important to our country’s safety to shut it down, being that classified documents were released (Miles, 2011). On the other hand, people felt that any form of censorship is a breach of our right to the freedom of speech. I personally find the problem with this censorship is finding middle-ground and making sure governments don’t exceed reasonable boundaries. Assistant Security of Defense for Public Affairs, Douglas Wilson, acknowledges the importance of social media because it “provides instantaneous, real-time ability to reach broad numbers of people and to communicate quickly and effectively” (Miles, 2011). The information shared over these outlets is what concerns him. While releasing the content itself may have negative repercussions, the benefits of this information and of being able to express yourself through freedom of speech can exceed them.