Ellsberg says otherwise. There are countless links, but here's one: https://progressive.org/dispatches/daniel-ellsberg-on-arrest....

FTA:

"Julian, meanwhile, is being charged with having gone beyond the limits of journalism by helping Manning to conceal her identity with a new username. He is also charged with having encouraged her to give him documents."

And that's exactly my argument why he's not a journalist.

Specifically, my argument is that if you want to protect journalism from being criminalized, then criminal activity cannot be called journalism.

Again: Ellsberg says otherwise. Let's quote the whole passage:

"Julian, meanwhile, is being charged with having gone beyond the limits of journalism by helping Manning to conceal her identity with a new username. He is also charged with having encouraged her to give him documents. That is criminalizing journalism. I can’t count the number of times that I have been asked for documents by journalists or for more documents. She had already given hundreds of thousands of files to Assange and he wanted more. This is the practice of journalism."

>that's exactly my argument why he's not a journalist...if you want to protect journalism from being criminalized, then criminal activity cannot be called journalism.

If you want to protect the standard of "innocent until proven guilty", you shouldn't deem them guilty until proven innocent; though it seems you already have?

Agree :) Sorry I do want nitpick here as it's seen so often - "innocent until proven guilty" might imply that they haven't been found guilty yet (until). "Innocent unless proven guilty" I think is a better phrase :)

I'm not sure that matters.

Assuming Ellsberg is the gold standard, his behavior would be sufficient, but not necessary, to be in the clear. Put another way, just because you don't live up to his standard, it doesn't necessarily mean you've done something wrong.

I agree that Assange is no saint. Assuming the allegations of rape are credible, he should stand trial and be punished if convicted. His motivations across a wide variety of leaks are certainly open for questioning.

But did he break any laws with regard to this specific leak? If he did actually assist Manning in cracking passwords (or whatever is alleged), then he should be held accountable for that. If not, he should go free (for that particular charge). It's that simple.

Of course, I don't trust the US gov't to give him a fair trial. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd manufacture evidence in a case like this; my belief is that they'll take any measures necessary when it comes to deterring people from leaking classified information, especially classified information they find embarrassing or damaging.

> But did he break any laws with regard to this specific leak?

According to the DOJ Indictment yes. He conspired with Manning to obtain access to a classified system. That's different than say Glenn Greenwald merely accepting Snowden's documents.

It's worth noting that Manning already had access to the classified system. Assange conspired to help her hide her usage of that access, something Greenwald has called the duty of a journalist. The law itself would violate the First amendment, so he would not have broken anything.

That remains to be seen. The indictment alleges yes, but it's up to a jury to decide (or a plea deal to avoid deciding).

That's fine to say, but what does it actually mean?

How do we protect forces providing oversight and sunlight to parts of the government that we the people really should know about to be informed voters? How do we reasonably protect 'watchers', and how can we have reasonable oversight of the 'watchers'?

Part of the issue is that there is not a clear standard that must be adhered to; where does selection bias count as an editorial action and where does it count as being an agent of a foreign power? If someone is a completely dumb conduit that does not evaluate the data but republishes it without inner knowledge do they have more or less protections than someone that evaluates and 'publishes' the content (I.E. in technical terms 'the press', even if not part of something traditionally obvious as a news organization.)?

Personally, I think this should be part of the duties of the Office of the Inspector General, and the OIG should be shunted to being answerable to the either the Legislature, or the Courts.

Of course, I also believe that OIG should be hounding the Executive constantly, and have the authority and onus to declassify anything classified as soon as possible too. That means that classification stops being a privilege of the Executive, and instead becomes a maintenance item That requires periodic review to reclassify.

I believe you are correct in that the spirit is SOME official watchdog should exist within the government. Even better some department for EACH BRANCH.

However it is also commonly said that a "fourth estate" (or branch) exists, and the top search result that I get for that phrase is:

"What is the role of the Fourth Estate?

In the United States, the term fourth estate is sometimes used to place the press alongside the three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. The fourth estate refers to the watchdog role of the press, one that is important to a functioning democracy.Jan 3, 2019

What is the Fourth Estate? - ThoughtCo https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-fourth-estate-3368058"

The press should also watch the government, and the oversight branches, and all of them should have oversight over the others as a completely closed system that roots out any actions that are may represent impropriety, immoral, OR illegal actions.

The first amendment doesn't protect conspiring to illegally access a computer system. Further, not all dissemination of classified materials can be classified as a first amendment activity.

In short, there has to be a difference between a spy and a journalist.

Further, it's worth noting that Snowden agreed to sign his life away when he signed the SF-86 form to apply for a US clearance. Glenn Greenwald did not.