Hello readers,
Today, I’m here on behalf of a very serious case that I am going to oversee and rule on.
An Australian man named Julian Assange founded an organization called WikiLeaks. This organization spans across the globe and its purpose is to collect secrets and publish them online. All of these news leaks and classified information are given by anonymous sources.
As you can imagine, this can get very messy, especially if those leaks are classified government and military information.
Julian Assange on the cover of Time magazine
Some examples of secrets having been revealed have come in the form of footage from a 2007 airstrike in which Iraqi journalists were killed, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs.
All of the above were previously not available to the public, mainly due to the fact that they were documents about the Afghanistan conflict, the mapping of over 100,000 deaths by insurgents in Iraq, and files about prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
Bradley Manning (now known as Chelsea) was the culprit of the biggest leak of information in American military history, and is now being tried in a military court.
In my last post, I went over my views on the First Amendment. The issue at hand here directly relates to that.
Before I head into this case, I need to consider whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, is subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information.
In simple terms, are some files meant to be kept secret? Does the security of our nation and military depend on secrecy?
Prior restraint and balancing the public’s right/need to know national security issues will be the main focal point.
As I dig into this a little more, let’s have a look at the definition of prior restraint.
Prior restraint, at its most basic definition, is defined as “government prohibition of speech in advance of publication.”
I will now turn directly to the famous Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart case in which I stated, “Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”
I will also refer to the Watergate scandal (United States v. Nixon) as well. This was one of, if not the most impactful moment of national security and the presidency in our country. I ordered the release of the White House tape recordings to the prosecutor and it led to the resignation of President Nixon.
Now I know what you’re thinking, “This is a military issue Warren, it’s different.”
You may be right. When you think of something like Manning’s case, I wouldn’t blame you if the Espionage Act is the first thing that came to your mind.
I will conclude with this. My statement on prior restraint is one of the pillars of my time on the bench. I would become a hypocrite if I backed out on what I firmly believe.
If something Mr. Assange wanted to post on WikiLeaks truly had an impact on the well being and security of the United States of America, to the point where we were threatened on a national level, then action must be taken.
As for now, I hold firm on my conviction that prior restraints are the least tolerable infringements on our First Amendment rights.
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_burger.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20101213,00.html
Excellent!!!
Excellent work!