Opinion

The Great Debate

In defense of publishing leaks

By Lindsay Beyerstein
June 14, 2013

Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.) wants Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald locked up for publishing the classified information leaked to him by Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former security contractor who divulged details of the NSA’s PRISM data mining program to the Guardian and the Washington Post.

“No right is absolute. And even the press has certain restrictions,” King told Fox News’s Megyn Kelly on Wednesday, “I think it should be very targeted, very selective, and certainly a very rare exception, but in this case, when you have someone who has disclosed secrets like this and threatens to release more, then to me, yes, there has to be, there should be legal action taken against [Greenwald].”

For all King’s bluster, he knows perfectly well that the U.S. is unlikely to prosecute Greenwald. No U.S. journalist has ever been successfully prosecuted for publishing classified information. This may seem counterintuitive. If it’s against the law to leak classified information, why is it legal for journalists to publish it?

The answer lies in a carefully engineered balance between the government’s prerogative for secrecy and the press’s freedom to report the news. Many core government functions, like national defense, depend on the state’s ability to maintain control of sensitive information. Officials and contractors with security clearances take an oath to keep the secrets they are shown and they are warned that if they fail to do so, they may be prosecuted.

Journalism is constitutionally protected because it serves as a check on power of all kinds. We count on journalists to expose wrongdoing and force transparency on the institutions that affect our lives. We want to live in a world where every decision maker knows that, at least in principle, her orders could end up on the front page of tomorrow’s paper, because the mere possibility of accountability serves as a check on abuse of power. Every decision maker needs to know that if she pushes her underlings to violate their core values, she is ultimately at their mercy.

In practice, not many people are willing to risk jail time in order to expose wrongdoing. However, if a figure like Snowden feels so strongly about an alleged injustice that he’s willing to risk jail time to reveal it, the public ought to be able to hear what he has to say. That’s why journalists need broad legal leeway to publish leaked information.

If a government has too much power to enforce secrecy it becomes unaccountable to its people. This lack of accountability increases the risk that the government will break the law behind closed doors and it also stunts the public’s ability to decide what the law should be. In the post-9/11 era, our leaders have assembled a huge and largely opaque national security bureaucracy that is supposedly tasked with keeping us safe from terrorism. The American people are largely left in the dark about how well these programs work, how much they cost, and what tradeoffs are being made between liberty and security. When secrecy is taken to extremes, it becomes paternalistic and anti-democratic. We couldn’t have a national conversation about whether the NSA should be tracking the  metadata of our phone calls until journalists revealed that the program existed.

Some Snowden critics have attempted to deny him the mantle of “whistleblower” because he leaked information about a program that was being overseen by the FISA courts. They maintain that a true whistleblower would only sound the alarm against an illegal program. However, just because a program is being overseen by a secret court doesn’t guarantee that it is constitutional. Only the Supreme Court can decide that. But as long as a program remains secret, there’s a Catch-22 in effect: The Supreme Court can’t review the constitutionality of the program until someone sues to challenge it, but if nobody knows they’ve been targeted by a secret program, nobody has standing to bring a lawsuit.

Snowden’s revelations broke that impasse. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union announced that it had filed a court challenge to the program. Snowden’s leak revealed that Verizon Business Network Services had been ordered to give up the  metadata for all the calls made by its customers. As a customer of VBNS, the ACLU has standing to sue.

The impact of Snowden’s leak provides a compelling example of what University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone was talking about when he told the House Judiciary Committee that the solution to reconciling government secrecy and press freedom was to guarantee “both a strong authority of the government to prohibit leaks and an expansive right of others to disseminate them.” Someone should read those words to Peter King.

PHOTO: U.S. Representative Peter King (R-NY) talks to the media after meeting with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to discuss the relief fund hold up in Congress for Hurricane Sandy victims at the United States Capitol in Washington January 2, 2013.   REUTERS/Gary Cameron 

Comments
8 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Now that we are 20 years into the internet age, it is time to update our definitions. For example: Is wikileaks a type of non-profit ‘publisher’? Are they press?

And what is press, now that bloggers are doing most of the ink? And real reporters are resorting to tweeting on their phones? Is a guy with a cell phone, taking pictures of a care wreck and posting them online with a short story…. press? If not, why not? And if so, what are the privileges accorded?

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive
 

Great post. We should be focusing on strengthening journalism and holding it to higher levels of integrity. When we see it under attack for this kind of activity, then we know it’s having a positive effect.

Posted by Dollared | Report as abusive
 

I don’t like or agree with just about anything Glenn Greenwald writes but at least I agree that he is a journalist. I don’t particularly think Snowden is some kind of hero (nor a traitor necessarily), but one thing I give him over Bradley Manning (who I WOULD call a traitor): he delivered his stolen data to a journalist; a crusader with an agenda, but someone perhaps with the wherewithall to know what’s fit to be published and what is not. If this data set had gone to an anarchist lunatic like Julian Assange I’d like to think more people would be against Snowden.

As it is I think it’s creating a tempest in a teapot and fueling overblown govt outrage that’s already way over inflated. Having a super-computer parsing call records and picking out specific numbers that they know terror suspects use to see who they are talking to is nothing to get in a snit over in my opinion. Being specifically wired tapped is WAAAAY more intrusive and that has been going on for decades and no one could give a crap. And if this program wanted to wire tap any of the hits they think they’ve found then they need a judge to authorize it. This isn’t some willy-nilly invasion of everyone’s privacy like everyone assumes (which speaks to my point of ridiculously overinflated mistrust of govt).

That being said I think it’s important that the program doesn’t go beyond this, and that the leak of this info wasn’t warranted unless Snowden felt FOR SURE that this was the direction of the program. Not sure how the NSA could listen in on the literally BILLIONS of calls a day in America….

Posted by CDN_Rebel | Report as abusive
 

Peter King seems to have an inadequate understanding of the First Amendment. Perhaps we should establish literacy tests for prospective members of congress.

Posted by Shamizar | Report as abusive
 

It has absolutely nothing to do with Al Qeuda. There is certainly concern about terrorism but by and large Al Queda could have been bought and sold by now, which touches on a deeper theory, and the spectre is merely a figure of speech used in official government announcements to direct a braindead public.

What you’re witnessing are the acts of a declining empire.
This is an uncomfortable truth you, at some point, will have to even mildly entertain or possibly apply to your cognitive process.

Do you really believe that Eric Snowden leaking to the press that our government is spying on us, to a degree of which we were not previously aware, is an actual revelation?

How surreal did it seem that local and federal officials had to shut down the entire city of Boston to apprehend one wounded nineteen year old?

You’re being lied to. And when i say lied to i don’t mean in the overt sense, there is such a thing as lying by omission. Financial issues are your raison d’ etat.

“Foolery, sir, does indeed walk about this orb; and like the sun, shines everywhere.”

Posted by Laster | Report as abusive
 

‘Nuther dumbo who goes around preaching Americanism but doesn’t understand the Constitution.

Feh!

-dlj.

Posted by DavidLloydJones | Report as abusive
 

If we are going to offer a type of immunity to the ‘press’ when it comes to purveying classified information, then we need to know what the press is. In the age of self-publishing, tweeting, blogging, movie camera in every pocket…. has the public become the press? Maybe. But if so, then why do we retain the distinction of ‘press’?

It’s a bit disorienting, and it matters. It’s like looking for the bartender, and seeing that he’s doing shots on the pool table.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive
 

If memory serves me, a journalist was prosecuted for disclosing information that TWA flight 800 was shot down with a U.S. missile. I think he took a plea deal.

Posted by SKYDRIFTER | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •