Proposed Bill Would Protect Journalists Like Julian Assange From Espionage Charges
A senator and two congressmen team up to help protect whistleblowers from vindictive prosecution.

Three members of Congress are attempting to avoid future Julian Assange–style prosecutions by amending the U.S. espionage law so that it doesn't apply to journalists.
Last week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) and Reps. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) partnered up to reintroduce the Espionage Act Reform Act. The Espionage Act, passed in 1917, is ostensibly intended to punish and imprison government employees and contractors for providing or selling state secrets to enemy governments. In practice, the law has been brought to bear time and time again to attempt to punish journalists and whistleblowers for attempting to inform the public about serious issues the U.S. government would prefer to keep secret. While people like Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Iraq War leaker Chelsea Manning, domestic surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden, drone whistleblower Daniel Hale, and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange aren't spies of foreign governments, many have been threatened with or thrown into prison as if they were.
The Espionage Act Reform Act would change the law in a couple of ways. First of all, the reform would clarify that the espionage law specifically affects people authorized to receive confidential government information (federal employees or contractors), meaning that journalists who receive classified information and publish it are not engaging in espionage. It also establishes that whistleblowers within the government are able to turn to members of Congress, federal courts, an inspector general, and a couple of other key oversight agencies with important classified information without running afoul of the law.
In short, the goal is to align the law with what people think that the law is for—to punish spies, not people trying to warn lawmakers or the public about federal government misconduct.
"At a time when government officials claim the right to perform warrantless surveillance upon all American citizens, there is an urgent need to zealously guard freedom of the press and to demand government transparency and accountability," Massie said in a prepared statement. "The ongoing attempts to prosecute journalists like Julian Assange under the Espionage Act threaten our First Amendment rights, and should be opposed by all who wish to safeguard our constitutional rights now and in the years to come."
Assange still currently faces extradition from the U.K. to the United States, where he faces 18 separate espionage-related charges for publishing the documents provided by Manning. Media watchdogs and human rights groups have been warning that the prosecution of Assange serves as a threat to journalism and compromises free speech.
The Knight First Amendment Institute supports the bill and sent out a statement urging for better safeguards for those who report on important national security issues.
"We welcome this bill, which would provide important new protection for press freedom in the United States," said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney for the Institute. "It would provide crucial safeguards for national-security journalists, enabling them to report on issues of indisputable interest to the public without fear of criminal liability. Congress should enact this bill and also provide additional protections to national-security whistleblowers."
Khanna and Wyden first introduced the bill in 2020. Each of them was referred to their respective House and Senate Judiciary Committees, where they sat with no further action.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What's happening to Assange is an utter travesty and the espionage law is more abused than a pregnant teenage hooker, but my tinfoil hat is worried there might be ulterior motives afoot.
What is a journalist?
Well, since everyone can publish on the web, I guess we need federal licensing.
(you mean like that?)
I am thinking that under the First Amendment, we are all journalists. I think it has more to do with who we ("the journalists") report the information to, rather than selling it to the highest foreign government bidder.
Indeed we are. Journalism is an action, not (just) a profession.
I without a doubt have made $18,000 inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather
extra cash online.... https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
The solution to bad government isore government
Is more...
Was he part if the planning and implementation or just a willing outlet after the fact? One is journalism and one moves over into espionage. I have a hard time trusting activists, even those I agree with, but I can trust the government to lie, cheat and be shitty to those that embarrass the swamp.
If this bill is any good, it will probably survive as long as Frosty the Snowman in the infernal regions.
that journalists who receive classified information and publish it are not engaging in espionage. Only there is no way to define what constitutes a journalist who should have no more or less rights than any other American citizen. Like most crimes, espionage is determined by intent, not what you label yourself.
I really think this is something where it should be more NDA based. Leakers leaking to him should not make him liable. If he did hack stuff, prove it. Espionage is not even intent, but how the data is accessed.
Not quite. "Espionage" is supposed to be a crime that can only be committed by the discloser of the information, not the disclosee. In other words, it doesn't matter why you do something with the stuff that you are given nor does it matter what you call yourself - the only crime is by the person who gave the information to you without authorization.
So, if during WWII a journalist got ahold of the US Navy's plan to go to Midway and published it, he would be protected? D-Day? Radar? The exact locations of US missile silos in the 1960s?
It looks nearly impossible to clearly state both the distinction between whistleblowing and espionage as well to come up with a definition of journalist.
I also see a lot of potential for the Marxist media to abuse this proposed bill when republicans regain control.
Not saying it is necessarily a good thing, but my understanding of Assange in particular is that he was engaging in conspiracy to commit espionage.
For example, let's say you are a foreign agent and you are trying to get someone to leak information. And so you provide them with hacking software, and setup infrastructure for that person to hide their activities, and to get that information out of secure areas.
Should none of that be punishable by government? If the foreign agent claims to be a journalist and publishes the data one week after it has shared the information with the foreign government (or just publishes it, and that's how the foreign government gets the data), are they suddenly protected as a "journalist".
It was all fun and games until He went after Her.
He committed espionage when he received confidential information, she didn't when she illegally shared confidential information. Simple as that.
0% of this passing.
The uniparty will not allow itself to be undermined by such things as open dialogue, freedom of information, or transparency.
Assange must die.
Three members of Congress are attempting to avoid future Julian Assange–style prosecutions by amending the U.S. espionage law so that it doesn't apply to journalists.
I would have to read up on the actual law, but that sounds truly, truly horrible. We should be very, very careful about producing laws that give special speech protections to a ill-defined class. Creating protected classes is one of the most damaging things we do in our current system.
We should be very, very careful about producing laws that give special speech protections to a ill-defined class.
How big is your legal team?
#nooneisspecial
#thelawappliestoall
The Espionage Act, passed in 1917
Wilson... just repeal the whole thing.
Fuck Assange. He's a Russian stooge, not a journalist. The GOP led Senate Intel Comm Report of 2020 on the 2016 election found he was supported by Putin and he knew it. Try to find him publishing any secrets of Russia, Trump, or anyone other than the US and Hillary.
D-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks
Sure seems to me like Joe Friday is full of shit.
If Joe Friday is not an FBI asset, then it is a good candidate for being a rogue AI. Although AI would assume some level of intelligence.
Joe is “AI” without the “I”.
Artificial Stupidity doesn't sound entirely inapt. Whether he's a real person just acting this stupid as a bad faith troll or he's an AI programmed to actively obfuscate, disinform, or torture logic, the name fits.
Xe's just mad that He went after Her.
It's pronouns all the way down.
Overt, show me where any of those are Russian secrets - or let's just say secrets Noam Chomsky wouldn't have approved of - or your full of shit.
“You’re”
You’re welcome asshole.
Glad there's a secretary on this board.
What the fuck?
Joe...
FridayBiden?Let me suggest the following: If anyone is to be prosecuted for revealing classified information to the public, let the prosecution show that the information was *properly* classified, as in it actually *needed* to be secret for a real reason. Bureaucrats covering their butts would not be a real reason. Let the public, through juries, decide whether the public had a right to know.
While that would exclude journalists, wouldn't it also exclude foreign agents who break into government offices and steal that same information?
From the GOP majority Senate Intel Comm Report of August 2020:
Enjoy, jerk-offs.
"The Russian government has pursued a relationship with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks that includes formal partnerships with state-owned media platforms, government assistance for WikiLeaks associates and sources, and information sharing. This relationship has existed since at least 2012 and reflects an alignment between the Russian government and WikiLeaks in seeking to undermine U.S. institutions and security. (U) RT (formerly Russia Today) has provided both beneficial coverage ofWikiLeaks and a formal, compensated media platform for Assange. RT first signed a contract with Assange
(U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were coordinating the release of hacked pNC, DCCC, and Podesta documents, Trump and senior Campaign officials sought information relating to "missing" Hillary Clinton emails as part of the Campaign's opposition research and press strategies. Beginning in April or May 2016, Roger Stone repeatedly cc;mveyed to Trump and senior Campaign staff that WikiLeaks would be releasing information damaging to Clinton. After the July 22 WikiLeaks release, Trump and senior Campaign officials believed Stone had access to non-public information about WikiLeaks' s ability and intent to release emails harmful to Clinton. (U) Thereafter, Trump directed Campaign officials to stay in touch with Roger Stone about future WikiLeaks activities regarding Clinton-related emails. Manafort in tum tasked Stone to contact Julian Assange, and Stone endeavored to reach Assange through several intermediaries. Stone reported back to senior Campaign officials and· associates, and to Trump directly, and provided advance informatio~ about another expected release relating to John Podesta, which he said would be damaging to Clinton. After WikiLeaks published the Podesta emails on October 7, Trump and the Campaign believed Stone had again acquired accurate, nonpublic information. The Committee could not reliably trace the provision of non-public information from WikiLeaks to Stone, and as a result. could not evaluate the full scope of Stone's non-public knowledge of WikiLeaks's activities. (U) The Trump Campaign strategically monitored and promoted the WikiLeaks releases of John Podesta's emails from October 7 until the· election.• The Campaign tried to cast doubton the October 7 joint DHS/ODNT assessment formally attributing the activity to Russia, and was indifferent to the significance of acquiring, promoting, or disseminating materials from a Russian intelligence services hack-and-leak campaign.....
...At approximately 4:32 p.m. on October 7-approximately 32 minutes after the release of the Access Hollywood tape-WikiLeaks released 2,050 emails that the GRU had stolen from John Podesta, repeatedly announcing the leak on Twitter and linking to a searchable archive of the documents.1677 ..."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1302095/Julian-assange-russia-wikileaks/amp
Never mind that Wikileaks has a section on Russia.
You can't stand the fact that Assange has embarrassed many governments in showing how corrupt they are (and how people like you lick their boots). So much for your conspiracy.
Thw wikileaks site has one Russian article, and as per Techcrunch review:
"Wikileaks has released a new cache of documents which it claims detail surveillance apparatus used by the Russian state to spy on Internet and mobile users. It’s the first time the organization has leaked (what it claims is) material directly pertaining to the Russian state.
As ever, nothing is straightforward when it comes to Wikileaks. And founder Julian Assange continues to face charges that his ‘radical transparency’ organization is a front for Kremlin agents (charges that stepped up after Wikileaks released a massive trove of hacked emails from the DNC last year at a key moment in the U.S. presidential election).
So it’s entirely possible Wikileaks/Assange is here trying to deflect from such charges by finally dumping something on Russia...."
One article, that's it, and charges by others - like Foreign Policy magazine - that Wikileaks has refused to publish other data given it that reflect badly on Russia.
So you apparently think that other countries not Russian are corrupt while Russia is not or Wikileaks would .........
Fill in the blank.
but the Russians!!!!
Emails are not all that important, right?
"The Periodic Table is Russian disinformation. The US government should crack down harder on electrons, foreign and domestic, for conforming to Mendeleev's ideology." - Joe Friday
""meaning that journalists who receive classified information and publish it are not engaging in espionage""
This is already legal. If your only involvement is receiving the documents you're ok. If you conspire with the thief to take the documents, you've crossed the line. My understanding is the government is claiming he did the latter.
Is more