Columbia Journalism School Letter to AG/Obama: WikiLeaks Prosecution ‘Will Set Dangerous Precedent’

[Hissyspit]

Source: Poynter.org

Columbia j-school staff: WikiLeaks prosecution ‘will set a dangerous precedent’


by Jim Romenesko
Published Dec. 14, 2010 1:11 pm
Updated Dec. 14, 2010 1:24 pm

Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism faculty and officers tell President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that “while we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment” and that “as a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.”

Read more: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/110885/columbia-j-school-staff-wikileaks-prosecution-sets-dangerous-precedent/

---

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

December 13, 2010

Dear Mr. President and General Holder:


As faculty members and officers of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, we are concerned by recent reports that the Department of Justice is considering criminal charges against Julian Assange or others associated with Wikileaks.

Journalists have a responsibility to exercise careful news judgment when classified documents are involved, including assessing whether a document is legitimately confidential and whether there may be harm from its publication.

But while we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment. Any prosecution of Wikileaks’ staff for receiving, possessing or publishing classified materials will set a dangerous precedent for reporters in any publication or medium, potentially chilling investigative journalism and other First Amendment-protected activity.

As a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.

The U.S. and the First Amendment continue to set a world standard for freedom of the press, encouraging journalists in many nations to take significant risks on behalf of transparency. Prosecution in the Wikileaks case would greatly damage American standing in free-press debates worldwide and would dishearten those journalists looking to this nation for inspiration.

We urge you to pursue a course of prudent restraint in the Wikileaks matter.

Please note this letter reflects our individual views, not a position of Columbia University or the Journalism School.

Respectfully,

Emily Bell, Professor of Professional Practice; Director, Tow Center for Digital Journalism

Helen Benedict, Professor

Sheila Coronel, Toni Stabile Professor of Professional Practice in Investigative;
Director, Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism

June Cross, Associate Professor of Journalism

John Dinges, Godfrey Lowell Cabot Professor of Journalism

Joshua Friedman, Director, Maria Moors Cabot Prize for Journalism in the Americas

Todd Gitlin, Professor; Chair, Ph.D. Program

Ari Goldman, Professor

LynNell Hancock, Professor; Director, Spencer Education Journalism Fellowship

Marguerite Holloway, Assistant Professor; Director, Science and Environmental Journalism

David Klatell, Professor of Professional Practice; Chair, International Studies

Nicolas Lemann, Dean; Henry R. Luce Professor

Dale Maharidge, Associate Professor

Arlene Morgan, Associate Dean, Prizes and Programs

Victor S. Navasky, George T. Delacorte Professor in Magazine Journalism; Director,
Delacorte Center for Magazine Journalism; Chair, Columbia Journalism Review

Michael Schudson, Professor

Bruce Shapiro, Executive Director, Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma



Alisa Solomon, Associate Professor; Director, Arts Concentration, M.A. Program

Paula Span, Adjunct Professor

Duy Linh Tu, Assistant Professor of Professional Practice; Coordinator, Digital Media Program

[Demeter]

1. Good Luck Trying to Stop This Train Wreck

and as for plausible deniability, this Administration has none left.

[Kolesar]

2. Was not Todd Gitlin a Vietnam War era "peacenik"?

An antiwar organizer?? :thumbsup:

[Octafish]

3. Gets to the heart of the matter.

Democracy requires Truth.

It's how we the people Decide.

[killbotfactory]

4. Our government has always ignored freedom of speech laws when it's convenient for them to do so

Or when they want to punish or send a message to a certain segment of the population.

Especially during times of war, freedom of speech and other liberties get trampled. It's not just some 1984 prophecy, it occurs regularly by those in power who don't like being called on their shit.

[Lucky 13]

5. To which they replied: "Exactly"

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. You expect Obama to care? He protects war criminals and illegal wiretaps.

[JDPriestly]

8. This is just so obvious if you know anything about American history.

I can't understand how anyone can justify criticism of the Wikileaks' conduct provided that they were not involved in hacking themselves.

Certainly certain military information is rightfully kept secret. But the machinations of that the Obama administration took to prevent trials of the Bush torturers in Spain and elsewhere and to prevent revelations of the facts about American lies and manipulation of public opinion prior to the Iraq War should not be secret. No one will be harmed by the publication of those facts. And they might influence how some people vote.

Does the government have the right and even sometimes the need to guard secrets? Yes.

Should the rules about what is kept secret be changed and more clearly defined? Yes. The system we have now permits the powerful to hide just how they are using their power. We cannot claim to be a democracy if we permit the powerful to hide what they are doing with the power with which we trust them.

It seems really odd to me that the Justice Department wants to punish Assange for publishing leaked documents, but does not want to see the prosecution of Bush and all those who authorized torture and other violations of human rights. That makes no sense.

[dflprincess]

9. So instead of prosecuting the criminals

the Obama administration will go after the man who dared expose them?

It just gets better every day.

[mwooldri]

10. Goverment is fueling the Streisand Effect. More they object...

... more people will want to find out what they're objecting about. Even if some of it is idle chatter... there's stuff in there of interest.

Sounds like certain people don't like the 1st Amendment.

[fujiyama]

11. I don't even understand why WikiLeaks becomes the responsible party

All it is, is a venue for the leaked info.

Sure, the administration can go after the military guy that leaked the info (forgot his name) and I know they have, but I fail to see how Assange and WikiLeaks are the guilty parties. It's simply the repository of information.

It's the government's fault for not being more cognizant of the domain in which the information was being stored and transmitted. This is simply a pathetic CYA. The information was bound to spill out at some point or the other.

[glinda]

12. Assange will be made an example of for all that they do after they get done with him.

[Hissyspit]

13. kick nt