Free Speech and Secrets

As the Wikileaks saga moves into Phase II, I think it is kind of unfortunate that Julian Assange is such a narcissistic ass. His personality is contaminating the real issue here - what are the limits of free speech and freedom of the press. If he weren't the face of Wikileaks, he would be just one more narcissistic ass accused of sexual misconduct, and all of this stuff with the bail hearing would not even make the "local news" section of the London Times.

The central issue here is that he published government secrets, and threatens to publish more.
While it clearly is annoying to a lot of people, is it a crime?

Going back into ancient (to me) history, the precedent was set with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers case.

The way I see it is that governments have a legitimate interest in keeping secrets. I do not say that easily because I would see the legitimate interest far more narrowly than any U.S. administration ever has. But I will concede that there are some things that are best kept secret, at least for a time.

In order to protect those secrets, government can restrict who is allowed to know them. Government can issue security clearances based on trust and "need to know." Government may take reasonable steps to secure the information.

But if those controls break down, then the information is out in the wild. Anyone who isn't trusted and cleared has access to it. None of those people have promised to keep it a secret. There may be stolen documents and illegally copied files, but "information" itself flows freely. (Commercial copyrights protect copying, but not transfer).

Once I know something, if I have not previously agreed to keep it a secret (or I do not agree after the fact), I am under no obligation to do so. (Your mileage may vary if you are in a less free society such as the People's Republic of China, Russia, or the United Kingdom.) As annoyed as everyone is, Mr. Assange is not obligated by any law to keep this stuff to himself once he comes into possession of it.

Of course governments being what they are, they will try to find an angle, some obscure law they can use to attempt prosecution. They may even succeed, and if they don't, they can still bankrupt a miscreant by making him mount a legal defense against an unlimited budget. And the governments of less free states (hopefully not the USA) may (and do) use, how shall we put this politely, "extra-judicial methods" to silence someone.

Since he is a narcissistic ass, Julian Assange may well believe his ultimate fate is to be a martyr. I think the press will tire of him first, unless a government does something stupid.

Oh - note to U.S. State Department - I really don't understand how, in the world of compartmented security clearances, security firewalls, and simple Windows 7 file folder protection, a junior enlisted man was able to download that mountain of information onto a CD and walk out the door with it. Yes, he committed a crime. But if Tiffiny's left the doors open, the counters unlocked and the merchandise out when everybody went to lunch, they wouldn't get much sympathy if someone helped themselves to some diamonds.