Reply #43: Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that editorials aren't covered by the 1st amendment!?!?! [View All]

[Xithras]

Luckily for the rest of us, your opinion runs counter to 200 years of history and Supreme Court rulings.

Near v. Minnesota, 1931. This is the foundational case for press rights, and it was quite blunt. Any American law that prohibits the press from publishing information of ANY type is inherently unconstitutional, unless it falls under a very tiny umbrella of exceptions (obscenity, calls for violent insurrection, release of certain time-limited information during wartime, such as soldier flight departure times or battle plans before combat has occurred).

Neither 'Near v. Minnesota' nor any subsequent case has curtailed those restrictions based on the opinions or political motivations of the person publishing the information.

Freedom of the Press is one of the closest "absolute" rights we possess in this country. Wikileaks, as a publishing organization, clearly qualifies for journalism protections...Julian Assange's personal beliefs or motivations aside. Also, remember that Assange is only one member of the organization. Wikileaks isn't someone's personal blog where Assange is just spouting his personal beliefs...Wikileaks is a registered nonprofit corporation located in Sweden. Why Sweden? Because it registered as a media organization there to gain coverage under the Swede's broad and far-reaching media protection laws.

It's not just a blog, it's an actual, registered media organization in a foreign country, run by an advisory board, of which Assange is merely one member of. There is ZERO factual basis for an argument that they aren't "journalists".