As for wikileaks, consider that Napster was found guilty for merely providing a service by which copyrighted material might by illegally shared. I tend to think a reasonably strong case will, in the end, be made a against wikileaks, a site whos entire purpose is to spread around illegally shared materials.

Then there’s the doctrine where shouting ‘fire’ in the crowded theater is not protected speech, as your rights cease to be protected when they endanger others. A reasonable case can be made that much of the published data endangers lives.

Similarly, it is illegal to knowingly purchase/sell stolen goods. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that extended to information. And, of course, there are very serious reasons to doubt that wikileaks would qualify as a ‘journalist’, or the ‘press’, given that it doesn’t write stories, analyze data, or otherwise do much except present raw information. Or it might well be considered treason – that the battle is done with data doesn’t make it less a declaration of war, really.

Even the EFF admits that, though weak, there may be a case there. It’s a bit absurd to expect the government not to protect itself here. I mean, failing all else, wikileaks basically decided to publish a bunch of private emails this time around. That rather violates the ambassadors’ rights to privacy, if nothing else.

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/
Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

To be fairer, Wikileaks did NOTHING ILLEGAL EVEN IF YOU THINK THEY DID BASED ON SOME NOTION THAT YOU GET FROM A TALKING HEAD ON THE TV OR FROM SOME INTERNAL NOTION THAT WHEN SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE DONE THAT ACTION IS THEREFORE ILLEGAL.

To be fairer still, Wikileaks HAS DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL AND HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING IN ANY COURT OF LAW IN THE U.S.

To be even more better fairer, even if the WIkileaks organization were to be indicted for violating U.S. law, the organization would be entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Look, pro-lifers don’t like it when women get abortions…but that doesn’t mean women who get abortions have broken the law. Same here. We get it that a bunch of sanctimonious, awful, fence sitting Americans want to come off as having the “high ground” by at once valuing the potential good of Wikileaks while still “acknowledging” that they broke the law — yes, we understand that is your little game to try and build up the perceived honesty of your opinion. It’s simply WRONG. It’s a rhetorical device, and not a particularly good one at that. I absolutely hate it when people phrase their opinions so that it’s really clear they “see both sides of things”. It’s a silly waste of time — Unless you can cite to a law that Wikileaks broke, then shut the fuck up about it breaking the law.

Copyright? I don’t think so.

Guardian is not journalism?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

Treason? As in ‘death by hanging”? For a foreign national?

Your entire comment is bogus: information NEVER “belongs” to anyone.

To grant it such a status “in Law” is the shortest and most direct route to tyranny, and to rule by terror.

I’ll paraphrase your true argument as I see it:

Watch what you say, and to whom you say it! First ask yourself: Does that info belong to you? Because if you cannot PROVE that it does, you are going to jail…or worse (hint hint)….so better pay me now.

Complete and utter bullshit.

People beyond the borders of your own Country, no less.

Cute comment but this ain’t a dress rehearsal or a movie or a video game.

The arrogance of the United States, my own country and one that I fight regularly, is staggering.

From Canuck:

“…and yet you would imprison people and execute people for [sharing information] – for the first time in US history.

People beyond the borders of your own Country, no less.”

to quote an old adage of domestic spying advocates – if you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide.

Secondly, consider. If I get a guy to, say, raid fort knox, and then distribute the gold, am I not a criminal? The word you might be thinking is ‘fence’. That’s basically what wikileaks is – an information fence. And, frankly, in this day and age, information is every bit as material as gold bricks, and more valuable in a lot of cases too.

Remember the iphone 4 case a while back? Remember how it’s illegal to knowingly buy or sell stolen goods? Giving them away counts too. And it’s a bit beyond belief that wikileaks didn’t know that the cables were stolen goods, which is the typical defense there.

Those so very in support of this behavior by wikileaks should remember that what’s been done is really not that different from someone posting all of your mail, your email, your medical files, and videos of stuff you did in 3rd grade, to a website. That wouldn’t be legal either, if only due to privacy violation statutes.

You wish.

“…due to privacy violation statutes.” ?

Which specific ones are you referring to?
Is that in the same “law” that makes information “the same” as physical property?

Why would Wikileks be bound by whatever obligations the leaker had previously agreed to with respect to the information with some other entity?

And were Coke Co. stupid enough to let a shareholder get its secret formula, they would not then seek to have Pepsi thrown in jail for obtaining it…trade secrets only have whatever protection the Corps can give it by operation or contract: the average shareholder need not keep any secrets she may come across about Coke from anybody, absent some prior contract with the Coke Corp.

And AFAIK Pepsi would be under no liability whatsoever to Coke if they obtained such info from a third party, with whom they had had no prior contacts.

If you cannot keep your secrets, do not expect the Law to keep them, to bring them back, for you.

Wait …. someone’s just telling me that merely saying something is illegal doesn’t make it so. Something to do with .. .wait .. .what? … “courts and shit”.

So … instead … you smell! Nuuh!

Someone declares WL illegal.

I’d really like to know what exact law they have broken. Actually, kattw, if you know, I believe the State Dept would like to know as well. Since you now know more than them, or more than other lawyers who have declared WL have done nothing illegal, then I think you could make some cool public service money.

But, alas, I don’t get no satisfaction.

also – Coca-cola formula has been public knowledge since the ’70′s.

It is not Wikileaks’s responsibility to make sure that US diplomats’ lives are comfortable and stress-free.

If I get a guy to, say, raid fort knox, and then distribute the gold, am I not a criminal?

The US hasn’t lost the cables – they’re all still there. Your analogy would apply if Bradley Manning, after having (allegedly) downloaded the cables, deleted the originals.

A better analogy would be Watergate, or the Pentagon papers.

Those so very in support of this behavior by wikileaks should remember that what’s been done is really not that different from someone posting all of your mail, your email, your medical files, and videos of stuff you did in 3rd grade, to a website.

The actions of the US government, whose stated goal is to serve the US public, whose reach and power are immeasurable, and who belongs to the people, are of higher interest and relevance to the people than somebody’s private mail. For those reasons, it’s a lot harder to argue for the government’s privacy than it is for yours and mine.