War on Freedom

Judge strongly defends First Amendment rights of journalists!

on . Posted in War on Freedom

Rejects DNC lawsuit against WikiLeaks.

NEW YORK (PNN) - August 1, 2019 - In a clear defense of the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled the Democrat National Committee cannot hold WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange, liable for publishing information that Russian agents were accused of stealing.

The DNC sued President Donald Trump’s campaign, the Russian Federation, Assange, and WikiLeaks on April 20, 2018, alleging the dissemination of materials “furthered the prospects” of the Trump campaign. They argued officials “welcomed” the assistance of agents allegedly working for the Russian Federation.

At the time, DNC chair Tom Perez accused WikiLeaks of helping to perpetrate a “brazen attack” on democracy. However, Judge John Koeltl in the Southern District of New York saw through the DNC lawsuit and recognized the impact it would have on press freedom.

Koeltl highlighted the case of the Pentagon Papers, where the Supreme Court held there was a “heavy presumption” against the “constitutional validity of prior restraints” (suppressing) the publication of information.

Whether or not WikiLeaks knew the materials were obtained illegally, they were protected by the First Amendment.

“The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” Koeltl asserted.

Acknowledging how WikiLeaks and various groups suggested this lawsuit threatened freedom of the press, Koeltl noted the DNC’s response. “This case does not threaten freedom of the press because WikiLeaks did not engage in normal journalistic practices by, for example, asking foreign intelligence services to steal new material from Amerikan targets.”

Yet, the DNC’s own allegations were, “WikiLeaks sent GRU operatives using the screen name Guccifer 2.0 a private message, asking the operatives to send any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review.”

The judge reasoned, “This was not a solicitation to steal documents but a request for material that has been stolen. Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to publish those documents.”

An amicus brief submitted to the federal court by the Knight First Amendment Institute, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the ACLU highlighted several examples of public interest stories published in the past decades that were based on stolen or illegally acquired information.

Reporting on Watergate relied on anonymous sources. Activists stole files from the FBI in 1971 that exposed COINTELPRO. Big Tobacco and scandals at global finance companies were exposed through illegal methods.

Koeltl recognized the public interest value of the materials that were published by WikiLeaks, as well as other media organizations during the 2016 presidential election. He especially focused on the DNC’s claim that WikiLeaks was prohibited from publishing alleged “trade secrets”.

“If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political, financial, and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them secret and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern,” Koeltl declared.

He added, “The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the Amerikan electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political Parties in the (Fascist Police States of Amerika) during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”

“Indeed, the DNC alleges that the publication of the stolen documents was so significant that it had an impact on the course of a presidential election. The DNC’s conclusory allegations that donor lists and fundraising strategies were among those documents are insufficient to pierce the shield that the First Amendment provides for core political speech,” Koeltl concluded.

“The DNC argues that the various meetings and conversations between the defendants in this case and with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC’s information show that the defendants conspired with the Russian Federation to steal and disseminate the DNC’s materials,” Koeltl said. “That argument is entirely divorced from the facts actually alleged.”

The judge called it irrelevant whether WikiLeaks may have solicited stolen documents from Russian agents

If WikiLeaks was held liable, this would render “any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a co-conspirator in the theft,” said Koetl.

The initial response of the DNC to the outcome of this lawsuit, as well as the fact that WikiLeaks and Assange were ever sued, shows how contempt for freedom of the press under the First Amendment is alive and well in political Amerika.

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

Freedom
2003-2018

Freedom sm

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis

HUGH HEFNER
1926-2017

Hugh Hefner

PROF. STEPHEN HAWKING
1942-2018

Hugh Hefner 

ART BELL
1945-2018

Art Bell

DWIGHT CLARK
1947-2018

dwight clark

CARL MILLER
1952-2017

Carl Miller

HARLAN ELLISON
1934-2018

Harlan Ellison

STAN LEE
1922-2018

stan lee