“While Defendants did, of course, have a constitutional obligation to refrain from restricting Plaintiff’s speech on account of the threat, or possibility, of public hostility to their Alt-Right message, the law is clear that Defendants had no constitutional obligation to prevent that public hostility,” Judge Norman K. Moon wrote.
“There is a strong likelihood that the government would have subjected Mr. Snowden specifically to such discriminatory treatment,” Snowden’s lawyers wrote. “A whistleblower the government considers to be a traitor would have been seeking permission from the very agencies on which he blew the whistle to speak about his views on surveillance."
Should social media companies remove posts with the whistleblower's name to protect the person from harm? Facebook and Twitter have different answers.
The Newseum Institute’s First Amendment expert, Gene Policinski, originally published this commentary on June 13, 2019, on the Newseum blog, […]
Federal prosecutors brought a new 17-count indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Assange is accused of violating the Espionage Act by helping former U.S. Army intelligence officer Chelsea Manning hack into a government database, and disclosing the stolen information on WikiLeaks. The new charges significantly expands on Assange's earlier charge of "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion." The scope of the charges against Assange raise concerns among legal scholars about First Amendment protections for publishers of classified information.
Certain charges in Assange's case might threaten legal protections afforded to those who report confidential information obtained by others.