Protect Source Leaks, Limit Leak Investigations

AP Photo/Jon Elswick

Reporting on leaked information informs the public, while claims of harm are often overblown.

Journalists routinely rely on leaked information to inform the public. Without leaks, we’d be left in the dark about vital information involving the government, corporations, and powerful individuals, who often act in secret.

When government information is leaked, the U.S. routinely claims, without proof, that the leak damages national security. We should be skeptical of claims that leaks cause harm, and of broad leak investigations that can lead to the surveillance of journalists and sources and the chilling of reporting.

Urge your senators to reject anti-press Army lawyer nominee

Journalists are not stenographers. Write a letter telling the Senate to reject a nominee for the Army’s top lawyer who thinks the government can punish reporters who publish news it doesn’t authorize.

First Name * Last Name
Email Address *
Street Address * Zip Code *

Edit this message so that it is unique to you: Dear Senator, President Trump’s nominee to be general counsel of the Department of the Army, Charles L. Young III, said during an exchange with Sen. Elizabeth Warren at an Oct. 7 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee that the First Amendment authorizes the government to punish journalists for publishing information that it did not approve for public release. That is absurd and disqualifying. And Young’s later clarification that criticizing Trump alone (without using unauthorized information to do so) does not justify retaliation offers little comfort. Journalists are not stenographers. Their job isn’t to keep the government’s secrets; it’s to report news the government does not want reported. That is why the First Amendment protects freedom of the press — there would be no need for a constitutional “right” to publish news the government wants published anyway. These fundamental rights are especially important when reporting on a department in a position to lie to the press and public to justify ill-advised wars and a track record of doing exactly that. Young’s remarks are consistent with the Pentagon’s highly controversial and highly unconstitutional (even after attempts to walk it back) policy aiming to punish reporters who solicit or publish unauthorized information. First Amendment experts across the political spectrum have commented on that policy’s unlawfulness, and anyone looking to serve as the Army’s top lawyer should know better. I urge you to oppose Young’s nomination.

* Required. We will not share your information with third parties. Learn more

Something went wrong processing this request. Please try again later.

Opt in to email updates from Freedom of the Press Foundation

Something went wrong and your email updates subscription could not be processed. Please visit our signup page and try again.

Thank you for urging the Senate to reject a nominee who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the First Amendment.

Donate

Share this message on social media:
Journalists are not stenographers. Join me in urging the Senate to reject a nominee for the Army’s top lawyer who thinks the government can punish reporters who publish news it doesn’t authorize.