In “Assessing The First Amendment As A Defense For Wikileaks

In â€Å"Assessing the First Amendment as a Defense for WikiLeaks and Other Publishers of Previously Undisclosed Government Information,† Janelle Allen explores whether WikiLeaks should be entitled to the same protections that traditional media outlets are given when they publish classified information. In her work, she goes over two possible avenues that the government can take if it wants to silence WikiLeaks; the two options are: prior restraint (censorship) and the Espionage Act. Allen, in order to bolster her argument that WikiLeaks should be entitled to the same protections given to traditional media outlets, goes over cases that fall under what is known as the Daily Mail Principle. This principle allows publications to publish material†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"A Helping Hand: Addressing New Implications of the Espionage Act on Freedom of the Press,† by Laura Barandes, details how Section 793 of the Espionage Act could potentially be used against member s of the press. She goes over the prosecution of two AIPAC employees who were relayed information by a Pentagon official to make her case that this section could potentially spill over to members of the press who report on/receive classified information. Also, in her work, an overview of the jurisprudence related to national security and the Espionage Act is provided. Richard D. Epstein’s paper, â€Å"Balancing National Security and Free Speech Rights: Why Congress Should Revise the Espionage Act,† goes over the arguments about why the Espionage Act should be revised. In his work, Epstein goes over the origins of the Act and the various Supreme Court cases related to its constitutionality. After giving an overview of what the court has said in the past about the Espionage Act, Epstein then focuses on a more contemporary case called, United States v Rosen. This case revolves around two lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Keith Weismann, who were charged with violating Section 793 of the Espionage Act for receiving classified information by a Pentagon official. The author then goes over the legal arguments employed by the pair in regards to Section 793. Some of the arguments they use is that the section is