Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Dear Common Dreams Readers:
Corporations and billionaires have their own media. Shouldn't we? When you “follow the money” that funds our independent journalism, it all leads back to this: people like you. Our supporters are what allows us to produce journalism in the public interest that is beholden only to people, our planet, and the common good. Please support our Mid-Year Campaign so that we always have a newsroom for the people that is funded by the people. Thank you for your support. --Jon Queally, managing editor

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

"This is not about Julian Assange. This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information."

"This is not about Julian Assange. This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information." (Photo: Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

Sanders, Warren, Wyden Join Free Press Advocates in Denouncing Assange Prosecution as Grave Threat—But Others Are Silent

"Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government."

Eoin Higgins

Though many Democrats have so far remained silent, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, and Bernie Sanders are among the few high-profile party members to join free press advocates in condemning Espionage charges against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange.

The political and journalism worlds reacted to the Trump administration's decision Thursday to charge Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act with concern for those celebrating the prosecution and dismay over those remaining silent on the issue.

"Espionage charges against Assange are a threat to press freedom."
—Karen vanden Heuvel

Assange was indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday. The charges are seen by many proponents of press freedom on both the right and the left as part of an effort from the White House to criminalize dissent by journalism and to produce a chilling effect on reporters exposing classified documents that the government would prefer remain hidden. 

Despite the unpopularity of the Trump administration among Democrats, however, at press time only three members of the party's congressional delegation has spoken up: Wyden, of Oregon; Warren, of Massachusetts; and Independent Sanders of Vermont. 

In a statement, Wyden said that he was "extremely concerned about the precedent this may set and potential dangers to the work of journalists and the First Amendment."

"This is not about Julian Assange," said Wyden. "This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information."

"Let me be clear: it is a disturbing attack on the First Amendment for the Trump administration to decide who is or is not a reporter for the purposes of a criminal prosecution," Sanders said in a tweet Friday. "Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government."

Warren, in a statement sent to The Intercept, differentiated between Assange and the free press. 

"Assange is a bad actor who has harmed U.S. national security — and he should be held accountable," said Warren. "But Trump should not be using this case as a pretext to wage war on the First Amendment and go after the free press who hold the powerful accountable everyday."

Critics of Assange have claimed that the Wikileaks founder is not a journalist, so his "crimes" are not applicable to journalists and journalism as a whole. But, as Knight First Amendment Institute staff attorney Carrie DeCell pointed out in a twitter thread, that's not the case. 

"The government argues that Assange violated the Espionage Act by soliciting, obtaining, and then publishing classified information," DeCell tweeted. "That's exactly what good national security and investigative journalists do every day."

Further, as The Atlantic's Adam Serwer said in a series of tweets, anyone rejoicing over Assange's indictments is missing the forest for the trees. 

"Some of you are so eager to punish Assange for helping Trump that you're willing to hand Trump a tool for prosecuting the reporters exposing his corruption," said Serwer. "That's plainly idiotic."

"Please stop and think," Serwer added. "If publishing classified information is prosecutable, than any outlet that does so can be prosecuted."

Margaret Kimberley, "Freedom Rider" columnist for Black Agenda Reportpointed to a case in France where journalists are being called in for questioning for publishing classified materials as part of the same story.

"This will happen more and more in the wake of the persecution of Julian Assange," said Kimberley. 

In a column at The Intercept, journalist James Risen put the indictment into context

"If the government gets to decide what constitutes journalism," Risen wrote, "what's to stop it from making similar rulings about any outlet whose coverage it doesn't like?"

The Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel made the stakes clear in a tweet.

"Espionage charges against Assange are a threat to press freedom," said vanden Heuvel.

Assange also got support from The Washington Post's executive editor, Marty Baron. In a statement, Baron said that the Trump administration was making a jump from hostility to the press to criminalizing journalism. 

"With this new indictment of Julian Assange," said Baron, "the government is advancing a legal argument that places such important work in jeopardy."

Baron was joined in his denunciation of the indictment by the editors of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Times executive editor Dean Baquet said in a statement the government was threatening a "basic tenet of press freedom."

"Obtaining and publishing information that the government would prefer to keep secret is vital to journalism and democracy," said Baquet. "The new indictment is a deeply troubling step toward giving the government greater control over what Americans are allowed to know."

While Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Matt Murray wasn't inclined to discuss the specific details of the Assange case, he did, in a statement to the Daily Beast, decry "the deeply troubling implications for traditional journalism and freedom of the press in this country."

"The right to publish uncomfortable, important information that the government would prefer to be kept secret is central to a truly free press," said Murray. 

In a statement, the Committee to Protect Journalists executive director Joel Simon said that the charges were "an attack on the First Amendment and a threat to all journalists everywhere who publish information that governments would like to keep secret."

"Press freedom in the United States and around the world is imperiled by this prosecution," Simon said.

It's unclear if the indictments will help or hurt the U.S. case for extradition. Assange is being held in U.K. jail awaiting a hearing—and, as The Intercept's Robert Mackey wrote in a column Friday, the charges may make it difficult for American officials to make a clear argument for Assange's transfer to the U.S.

The uproar could make it easier for Assange’s lawyers in the U.K. — where he is currently serving a 50-week jail term for violating bail — to argue that he is wanted in the United States primarily for embarrassing the Pentagon and State Department, by publishing true information obtained from a whistleblower, making the charges against him political in nature, rather than criminal.

However, as journalist Freke Vujst said on Twitter, that might be the plan—maybe the U.S. doesn't want to try Assange but instead wants to use his case to intimidate other journalists.

"Why did they not stick with its more limited first indictment?" wondered Vujst. "Could it be because US does not really want to put Assange before a US court of law?"


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

"I'm sure this will be all over the corporate media, right?"
That’s what one longtime Common Dreams reader said yesterday after the newsroom reported on new research showing how corporate price gouging surged to a nearly 70-year high in 2021. While major broadcasters, newspapers, and other outlets continue to carry water for their corporate advertisers when they report on issues like inflation, economic inequality, and the climate emergency, our independence empowers us to provide you stories and perspectives that powerful interests don’t want you to have. But this independence is only possible because of support from readers like you. You make the difference. If our support dries up, so will we. Our crucial Mid-Year Campaign is now underway and we are in emergency mode to make sure we raise the necessary funds so that every day we can bring you the stories that corporate, for-profit outlets ignore and neglect. Please, if you can, support Common Dreams today.

 

Abortion Rights Defenders Applaud Judge's Block on Utah 'Trigger Ban'

"Today is a win, but it is only the first step in what will undoubtedly be a long and difficult fight," said one pro-choice advocate.

Brett Wilkins ·


Scores Feared Dead and Wounded as Russian Missiles Hit Ukraine Shopping Center

"People just burned alive," said Ukraine's interior minister, while the head of the Poltava region stated that "it is too early to talk about the final number of the killed."

Brett Wilkins ·


Biodiversity Risks Could Persist for Decades After Global Temperature Peak

One study co-author said the findings "should act as a wake-up call that delaying emissions cuts will mean a temperature overshoot that comes at an astronomical cost to nature and humans that unproven negative emission technologies cannot simply reverse."

Jessica Corbett ·


Amnesty Report Demands Biden Take Action to End Death Penalty

"The world is waiting for the USA to do what almost 100 countries have achieved during this past half-century—total abolition of the death penalty," said the group.

Julia Conley ·


Pointing to 'Recently Obtained Evidence,' Jan. 6 Panel Calls Surprise Tuesday Hearing

The announcement came less than a week after the House panel delayed new hearings until next month, citing a "deluge" of fresh evidence.

Common Dreams staff ·

Common Dreams Logo