One of the stranger parts of rewatching Page One, the 2011 documentary about media reporting at The New York Times, is the presence of Julian Assange, who was at that time in his earlier days of leaking classified or otherwise secret information — initially via open platforms like YouTube, later in partnership with some of the world’s top news organizations. The various journalists and talking heads debate the right way to think of Assange and WikiLeaks — are they a source? a rival publisher? journalists? activists? — but the overall framing is that this is a new player on the field, and journalism is going to have to figure out ways to integrate it, respond to it, or otherwise engage with the new reality WikiLeaks seemed to portend. Bill Keller, then executive editor of the Times, says at one point: “The bottom line is, WikiLeaks doesn’t need us. Daniel Ellsberg” — leaker of the Pentagon Papers to the Times decades earlier — “did.”
As volatile an addition as WikiLeaks seemed at the time, on second viewing it feels like a simpler age — before Guccifer 2.0, before Seth Rich conspiracies, before embassy-as-hermitage, before President Trump. But where exactly Assange’s apparatus — dedicated to transparency, it says, while an actor on behalf of a foreign government, officials say — is still a matter of some debate.
So when Julian Assange was arrested this morning in London — after Ecuador, his diplomatic landlord since 2012, withdrew his immunity — it raised a set of old questions in a new context. Is Assange a journalist? Is the act of publishing newsworthy government secrets always journalistic, even if prompted by a foreign power? Does publishing not-particularly-newsworthy emails hacked from a private citizen earn the same benefit of the doubt? And is Assange facing charges as an enemy of the United States accused of real crimes or as a journalist being harassed by a government whose secrets he revealed?
Thankfully, Twitter figured this all out pretty quickly, as always.
The charges Assange faces in the United States do not directly relate to his publishing activities. Instead, he faces one count of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” alleging that Assange agreed to help Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning by trying to crack the password on a Defense Department computer in order to obtain classified government documents, which would then be leaked to WikiLeaks. That he wasn’t charged with espionage — which would have more directly entangled the act of publishing secrets with questions of press freedom — was a relief to some who’d been worried before the charges were unsealed. But not everyone was convinced, seeing in the conspiracy charge a lot of standard journalistic behavior. And more charges — with more potential complications for journalists — could be coming.
As @emptywheel lays out here, a case against WikiLeaks and Assange is likely to set a dangerous precedent that can be used against mainstream investigative journalists like @JasonLeopold: https://t.co/uP4hYrZ0jz
— Peter Sterne (@petersterne) April 11, 2019
So the CFAA charge is clearly a pretext, a way of punishing Assange for publishing classified documents without actually charging him for it.
But the fact that DOJ went out of its way to avoid charging him for publishing means this doesn't set a dangerous precedent.
— Peter Sterne (@petersterne) April 11, 2019
I think it's shitty and kind of unfair to go after Assange on a vague CFAA charge if you're really upset about him publishing classified information.
But it's at least better than the alternative of actually criminalizing the publication of classified information.
— Peter Sterne (@petersterne) April 11, 2019
Here's the Trump DOJ announcement about its indictment of Assange. It relates *only* to the 2010 classified docs about the Iraq & Afghanistan War logs & diplomatic cables. It has nothing to do with the 2016 election. This is huge attack on press freedom https://t.co/sKRTeACsYZ
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 11, 2019
What’s more likely: Donald “I love Wikileaks” Trump wants his doj to prosecute assange because of Russian interference on his behalf or…The Trump doj is eager to set a legal precedent they think could allow them to prosecute “the enemy of the people?”
— Adam Serwer🍝 (@AdamSerwer) April 11, 2019
On first pass, the Assange indictment seems pretty flimsy. Assange supposedly agreed to help crack a password AFTER Manning gave WL all the docs they published. DOJ isn't even alleging anything came of it. The "manners & means of conspiracy" section is all regular journo conduct: pic.twitter.com/frmsfdedaE
— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) April 11, 2019
The Assange indictment seeks to allay press freedom concerns by focusing on an allegation that he tried to help Manning “crack” a DOD password—i.e. entering into a conspiracy to steal rather than simply receiving info. https://t.co/86cAwi2tsp
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) April 11, 2019
The US charged Assange with, essentially, helping a source hack into a DoD computer by cracking a password. While journalists do publish material that is gathered by sources, we don't help the sources pick the locks on the safes that hold the information.
— Katie Benner (@ktbenner) April 11, 2019
This is key. There are reasonable arguments to be made about charging hacking vs publishing but the argument that Assange would have to be a "journalist" as defined by peers or governments is not solid. https://t.co/eYooI7LGVX
— Alex Leo (@AlexMLeo) April 11, 2019
One of the rare talking points that united all Russian troll farm accounts—from the ones pretending to be anti-Hillary Black Lives Matter accounts, to fake sexy moderate Texan ladies, to ones pretending to be state GOP Twitter accounts—was universal praise of Julian Assange. https://t.co/hhR29UREqg
— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) April 11, 2019
There had been a lot of, justified, concern for journalists in recent years as Trump has ramped up violent rhetoric around them.
What is happening to Assange today will happen to a journalist you respect before long.
— LibrarianShipwreck (@libshipwreck) April 11, 2019
The indictment against Assange sets a dangerous precedent. If this sticks, what stops them from charging other journalists with "conspiracy" for deleting metadata and chat logs to protect sources, encouraging sources to leak documents, or using whistleblower submission systems? pic.twitter.com/6PM3gCUYTb
— Micah Lee (@micahflee) April 11, 2019
In case anyone is wondering why Assange would be charges with a computer crime, it's because computer crime is incredibly easy to charge people with under US law. You can barely use a computer without committing crimes under many prosecutorial theories. https://t.co/xde3BrCjNH
— Quinn "kind of here" Norton (@quinnnorton) April 11, 2019
Assange & lawyers’ strategy seems to be hoping that journalists will rally to his defense on 1st Amendment grounds. Maybe so, maybe not. But objectively, his tactics differ dramatically from those familiar to most journalists
— Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) April 11, 2019
know what endangers journalists? Assange working with Russian intelligence to elect a US president who calls journalists enemy of the people https://t.co/IPTfvgE9Pk
— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) April 11, 2019
I'd say it depends.
If they end up charging Assange for releasing hacked materials, that could be problematic, since news organizations have done exactly that.
But if they outline some kind of conspiracy with Russia or others, that would be very different.
— Chris Megerian (@ChrisMegerian) April 11, 2019
Whatever Julian Assange's intentions were for WikiLeaks, what he’s become is a direct participant in Russian efforts to weaken the West and undermine American security. I hope British courts will quickly transfer him to U.S. custody so he can finally get the justice he deserves.
— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) April 11, 2019
As context for #WikiLeaks and #AssangeArrested , remember that the day BEFORE the Podesta dump was the IRA's biggest day on Twitter of the entire operation. pic.twitter.com/TxaMLy5DNg
— Patrick Warren (@plwarre) April 11, 2019
Maybe Reality Winner’s case wasn’t as complex. Or maybe she was a girl for whom the same journalism-y actors did not really rise to strenuously defend because it didn’t fit their narrative as well.
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) April 11, 2019
Anyway she’s in jail for trying to leak a government report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. I’m sure the content of her leak has nothing to do with why Assange’s most virulent defenders don’t talk about her much.
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) April 11, 2019
/8 It limits the ability of the country seeking extradition to prosecute for more charges than they asked for in the extradition request. But (1) you can prosecute for other things based on the same facts, and (2) the requested country can waive it.
— 36Popehats (@Popehat) April 11, 2019
This is computer fraud, plain and simple. No espionage charge; no charge for publication. Journalists who rob and steal are not cloaked in jouralistic privileges. https://t.co/8cA6i4YAnX
— Paul Rosenzweig (@RosenzweigP) April 11, 2019
It doesn't seem, however, that Assange was actually successful pic.twitter.com/708M9YtcLE
— Chris Megerian (@ChrisMegerian) April 11, 2019
In case anyone is wondering why Assange would be charges with a computer crime, it's because computer crime is incredibly easy to charge people with under US law. You can barely use a computer without committing crimes under many prosecutorial theories. https://t.co/xde3BrCjNH
— Quinn "kind of here" Norton (@quinnnorton) April 11, 2019
Key passage in indictment: "Cracking the password would have allowed @xychelsea to log onto the computers under a username that did not belong to her." In fact, "Manning had already provided WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of classified records" she downloaded on her own.
— Michael Isikoff (@Isikoff) April 11, 2019
The book is Gore Vidal’s History of the National Security State
— Daniel Sandford (@BBCDanielS) April 11, 2019
I will pass the baton to real lawyers but this appears to be a good outcome rather than the one I was worried about earlier. https://t.co/QB5UgHzOoJ
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) April 11, 2019