Some say situation could be biggest free-speech test of current lifetimes; world press condemns — and sometimes defends — fierce U.S. response

VARIOUS DATELINES

The continuing release of classified U.S. diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks has intensified what has become a fiery debate over the ethics of disclosing confidential information, with some defending WikiLeaks’ actions as free speech and others condemning the site as dangerous.

WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, was in a London jail as this issue of Newsline went to press, awaiting disposition of rape and molestation charges lodged by two Swedish women — charges Assange dismisses as politically motivated.

Several aspects of the story have focused largely on ethical issues. Among them:

• National Public Radio reports that the WikiLeaks affair could, according to some, be the highest-stakes free-speech battle of our lifetimes, with the future of the internet hanging in the balance. The stakes are high on all sides, according to the report, with President Obama — long positioned as a champion of internet freedom — now finding his arguments undermined by his condemnation of WikiLeaks. At the same time, free-speech advocates are faced with questions about the limits of expression, including the legality and morality of allowing their computers to be used in cyber-attacks against companies that cut lines of financial support for WikiLeaks.

• Legal action against Assange may be complicated, according to a report prepared by the Congressional Research Office (CRO) and summarized in high-tech trade publication ComputerWorld. The study concludes that some of the information released in the cable dump may have national security implications and could be prosecutable under the Espionage Act and other criminal laws. But in practical terms, such a prosecution would be unprecedented, according the CRO study: “We are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it.” Prosecuting Assange also would raise First Amendment issues and political fallout “based on concerns about government censorship.”

• Businesses caught in the WikiLeaks controversy also are balancing moral obligations, notes an analysis in London’s Independent. Visa, MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal stopped serving as conduits for money sent to WikiLeaks, prompting some supporters to launch hacking attacks against the companies’ sites. The incident makes for “a fascinating debate about business ethics,” writes the Independent’s David Prosser. “The easy option is to accuse these businesses of a craven disregard for freedom of speech — of giving into political pressure for the basest of motives: profit. The reality is a little more nuanced…. For one thing, no business can simply disregard the views of the government of the biggest economy in the world. For another, while these companies’ decisions to sever links with WikiLeaks has caused outrage amongst supporters of the right to free speech and an open Internet, there is another large constituency that is furious about what WikiLeaks has done.”

• The rupture of diplomatic secrecy and Washington’s thunderous reaction has produced an often-angry response in Europe, reports the New York Times. Filing from Paris, Steven Erlanger writes that for some Europeans, the U.S. response “displays imperial arrogance and hypocrisy, indicating a post-9/11 obsession with secrecy that contradicts American principles.” Some in the European press have compared the United States to China for its reaction to information placed on the internet. But not all the European press has been siding with WikiLeaks, according to the Times. French daily Libération defended the United States’ right to protect diplomatic secrecy, and the Paris-based Le Figaro called the cable leak “a precious gift to terrorists.”

Sources: , Dec. 10 — , Dec. 10 — , Dec. 10 — , Dec. 9 — , Dec. 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Dec. 6 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 8 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 25 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 30 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 16.