Senators Joseph Lieberman, John Ensign, and Scott Brown have introduced a bill to amend the Espionage Act in order to facilitate the prosecution of folks like Wikileaks. The bill is confusingly called the SHIELD Act, though it is anything but a media shield law–a term usually used to refer to laws that protect members of the media from having to testify as to the identities of their sources. As I read it, it would dramatically expand the scope of 18 U.S.C. 798, which is now a relatively targeted provision criminalizing the disclosure or publication of cryptographic systems and communications intelligence. As amended by the bill, the statute would read in relevant part:
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government or transnational threat to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government [or] concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community of the United States . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of passing a criminal leaks bill. I opposed it flatly for a long time, but the use of the Espionage Act as a surrogate for a leaks law has given me second thoughts. The relevant provision of the Espionage Act is so vague that its use to prosecute leaks and secondary transmissions of leaks is potentially more alarming than a well-drawn leaks law that may authorize some prosecution of publication. At the same time, the Espionage Act’s very vagueness and the legal uncertainty about it tend to inhibit its use. A well-drawn law might not induce the same sort of caution and might ironically, by criminalizing less, give prosecutors more confidence about the cases they can bring. The result might actually be more energetic prosecutions of media than we see under the absurdly broad current law.
This bill, however, seems like it offers the worst of both worlds. It leaves intact the current World War I-era Espionage Act provision, 18 U.S.C. 793(e), a law whose many problems we discussed last week, and then takes a currently well-drawn law and expands its scope to the point that it covers a lot more than the most reckless of media excesses. A lot of good journalism would be a crime under this provision; after all, knowingly and willfully publishing material “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government” is no small part of what a good newspaper does.
These are dangerous waters, and it is well worth treading carefully here. I’m not sure what the right answer to this problem is–a matter on which I frankly go back and forth. But I’m confident that it’s not a general authorization to prosecute anyone who knowingly gives any unauthorized person any information related to the national defense and anyone who willfully publishes anything classified about human intelligence activities.
59 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Steven Hugg, Lawfare. Lawfare said: Espionage Act Amendments: Senators Joseph Lieberman, John Ensign, and Scott Brown have introduced a bill to amen… http://bit.ly/hpdaJw [...]
[...] Julian, who will now use this latest leak to further erode freedom of speech (especially with the dreaded SHIELD bill coming down the [...]
[...] img { border:2px solid #cfcfcf;} #gallery-1 .gallery-caption { margin-left:0;} Read MoreLawfare › Espionage Act AmendmentsAnorak News » Anna Chapman And Katia Katuliveter Prove Russia’s Spymasters Are Bonkers: [...]
[...] Dispatches (NYT) Related: Op-Ed: Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act (WSJ: Dianne Feinstein) Espionage Act Amendments (Lawfare [...]
[...] Lawfare › Espionage Act Amendments [...]
[...] from governments around the world. In the United States, lawmakers have rashly proposed a law that threatens legitimate news reporting well beyond WikiLeaks. We expect to see similar efforts in other [...]
[...] Lawfare › Espionage Act Amendments [...]
[...] Lawfare › Espionage Act Amendments [...]
[...] Lawfare › Espionage Act Amendments [...]
[...] from governments around the world. In the United States, lawmakers have rashly proposed a law that threatens legitimate news reporting well beyond WikiLeaks. We expect to see similar efforts in other [...]
[...] Lawfare › Espionage Act Amendments [...]
[...] and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] Lawfare › Espionage Act Amendments [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] Aux Etats-Unis, les législateurs se sont empressés de proposer une loi qui représente une menace pour bien des agences de presse. Malheureusement, il est à craindre que des mesures similaires [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] from governments around the world. In the United States, lawmakers have rashly proposed a law that threatens legitimate news reporting well beyond WikiLeaks. We expect to see similar efforts in other [...]
[...] not exaggerating. Read the bills for yourself, and also read this excellent article by Benjamin Wittes to place the Shield Act in its legal [...]
[...] Lawfare › Espionage Act Amendments [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] national security law expert Benjamin Wittes wrote at Lawfare blog after the bill’s introduction: A lot of good journalism would be a crime under this provision; [...]
[...] at best, with net neutrality; and, oh yes, plan to wiretap (and—thanks to Wikileaks—censor) the entire Internet, at great cost, apparently in the hope that bad guys will never discover the [...]
[...] “As amended by the bill, the statute would read in relevant part: Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government or transnational threat to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government [or] concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community of the United States . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (Wittes, www.lawfareblog.com) [...]
Hello…
Nice writing. I think your blog should come up much higher in the search results than where it is showing up right now….