Is America’s Free Press Really Free? Ask Julian Assange
Inspired by the national anthem, the United States’ most recognizable nickname — “the Land of the Free” — is meant to emphasize the nation’s commitment to liberty and freedom for its citizens. The Bill of Rights and an array of additional amendments in the United States Constitution guarantee certain protections from intrusion. This includes the freedom of the press.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press.” In theory, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with the distribution of information and allows journalists to report on matters of public interest without censorship.
I don’t need to elaborate on years of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has shaped the scope and nuances of First Amendment protections. However, the Supreme Court has made clear that it is integral for a nation that a free press be permitted to oppose and challenge the government.
The Court has stated “that debate on public issues … may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Furthermore, the Court has stated that “paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people.” New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers Case) (1971). In addition, the Court has held that publishing or broadcasting information obtained from a source who had obtained the information or content illegally is protected. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001).
By these measures, the United States appears to have an incredibly strong legal standard in place which should protect journalists. However, a man named Julian Assange would probably disagree with that evaluation.
Assange is currently sitting in prison in the United Kingdom, nearing five years now, while fighting extradition to the United States on espionage charges. One may wonder: What exactly could Julian Assange have done to be accused of violating the Espionage Act? In 2006, Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is a media organization, run as a non-profit, that publishes classified documents and other media provided by anonymous sources.
WikiLeaks is famously known for releasing document caches and media exposing serious violations of human rights and civil liberties by various governments. Notably, the group released footage of the now-infamous July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike in which Iraqi journalists and several innocent civilians were killed by a U.S. helicopter crew. During the 2016 United States presidential election, WikiLeaks released emails from the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, showing that the national committee essentially acted as an arm of Clinton’s campaign and sought to undercut Bernie Sanders. Other important releases include Vault 7, a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish in 2017, which detail activities and capabilities of the CIA to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare.
In 2010, Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, a former United States Army soldier, disclosed nearly 750,000 classified or sensitive military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. These documents included: videos of the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables; and 482,832 Army reports, collectively known as the “Iraq War Logs” and “Afghan War Diary.” WikiLeaks and its media partners published this material between April 2010 and April 2011. Manning’s actions sparked significant public debate about the role of the military and U.S. foreign policy.
Under Supreme Court precedent, particularly Bartnicki v. Vopper, Julian Assange should be fully protected by the First Amendment. All information obtained by Assange and the WikiLeaks organization was provided by third-parties. As far as the evidence shows, Assange did not obtain any information in an illegal manner. Just because his sources may have broken the law, doesn’t mean that his activities fall outside of First Amendment protections.
The closest case the government has on Assange would be related to WikiLeaks’ release of Chelsea Manning’s leaked materials. Manning, as noted earlier, disclosed nearly 750,000 classified or sensitive military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. If the government can prove that the WikiLeaks founder actively encouraged or aided Manning in stealing government documents, First Amendment protections would vanish. However, ultimately, the charges against Assange “rely almost entirely on conduct that investigative journalists engage in every day.” If not fully criminalizing the act of investigative journalism, these charges will surely put a damper on the activities that journalists are comfortable engaging in. And that is the ultimate goal, which is why this indictment should be understood for what it is: “a frontal attack on press freedom.”
Julian Assange is the first individual who has been indicted by the Justice Department, from a grand jury, with Espionage Act charges, based exclusively on the act of publication. Arguably, not since the 1970s, with the release of the Pentagon Papers, had such damaging information about the United States government been released in such a manner. Oddly enough, the inspiration for WikiLeaks was Daniel Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.
Assange was charged in 2019 by the United States, accused of violating the Espionage Act. At the time, Mike Pompeo was the acting Secretary of State. Before taking on that role, from 2017 to 2018, Pompeo served as the Director of the CIA. During that time, WikiLeaks released Vault 7, a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish in 2017, which detail activities and capabilities of the CIA to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. Following this release, which began 7 years ago on March 7, 2017, the CIA hatched plans to murder WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. That is correct, the CIA reportedly plotted to kidnap and assassinate Julian Assange.
It is clear that the United States has always had a particular vendetta against Julian Assange. Is it personal grudges, the fact that he has embarrassed and exposed the United States government as a whole, or does the government genuinely believe that he is a threat to national security, commited crimes, and deserves punishment? In any case, Julian Assange never committed the crimes he is accused of committing by the United States government, and his activities are protected by the First Amendment.
Ultimately, there needs to be a delicate balance between protecting the rights of a free press and the protection of national security interests. However, the United States government often places its hand on the scale, and has shown that it is willing to stifle free speech in response to very vague and hardly-serious threats against national security. Ultimately, the United States government is more concerned about being exposed for committing crimes and having its operations exposed than it is about preserving free speech. Now, in 2024, a degraded Assange is launching his final legal bid to stop his extradition to the United States at the High Court.
Politicians in the United Kingdom frequently voice concern about “cancel culture,” yet only a handful have openly criticized the United States’ efforts to cancel a journalist for allegedly causing shame and embarrassment. As we move into the coming week, a crucial question arises: Does our judiciary and government possess the resolve to challenge this extradition? Undoubtedly, anyone who cherishes the right to free speech should be paying attention
