Article follows: "U.S. authorities have been engaged in discussions over whether to seek charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, according to a source familiar with the matter. The debate over charges was first reported by the Washington Post. Officials have been debating whether Wikileaks -- the organization which has shared troves of confidential materials, often received via persons sharing it illegally -- should be viewed as a journalistic enterprise, as Assange claims, or as a group that illegally aided and abetted the widespread disclosure of sensitive information. The matter was previously considered by the administration of President Barack Obama, but charges were never brought. CIA director: Wikileaks a 'hostile' intelligence service abetted by Russia Spicer says 'massive difference' between CIA WikiLeaks leak and Podesta email leak In March, Wikileaks released files it said originated from the CIA and detailed the agency's ability to secretly gain access to internet-connected consumer products. Last week, CIA Director Mike Pompeo took aim at the organization, describing it as a "hostile" intelligence-gathering service that at times is "abetted by state actors like Russia." He further identified Assange as a "fraud" and "coward." "I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would have found himself on the wrong side of history," said Pompeo. Assange is currently living in the Embassy of Ecuador -- the country that granted him asylum in 2012 -- in London, where he has avoided extradition to Sweden over sexual assault charges. President Donald Trump's personal opinion of Wikileaks has varied over time. During the presidential campaign, he praised the organization as it released the purported emails of the Democratic National Committee, at one point calling it a "treasure trove." But Trump has also criticized the actions Wikileaks' sources such as Chelsea Manning, whom he has called a "traitor." During the first three months of his presidency, Trump has identified the leaking of sensitive information as one of the federal government's most serious problems. He has repeatedly implored the intelligence community to find "leakers" who have provided information on surveillance activities involving his associates that have ensnared his administration in controversy. [end of article quote] Jim Bell's comments follow: The article's heart is "Officials have been debating whether Wikileaks -- the organization which has shared troves of confidential materials, often received via persons sharing it illegally -- should be viewed as a journalistic enterprise, as Assange claims, or as a group that illegally aided and abetted the widespread disclosure of sensitive information." However, the modern Internet world has long since 1995 completely blurred the line between what might once have been called "Legitimate journalism" and "amateurs". Assange and Wikileaks were, together, far more influential in regards to the 2016 election's outcome than any one newspaper, or perhaps all the newspapers themselves combined. The Supreme Court case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States clearly established that the high bar to prior restraint to publication of classified information covered the releases in the Pentagon Papers case. from Wikipedia: [quote begins] Justice Hugo Black wrote an opinion that elaborated on his view of the absolute superiority of the First Amendment (1971): - "[T]he injunction against the New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented ... . [E]very moment's continuance of the injunctions ... amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. ... When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights ... . In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe ... . In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. ... [W]e are asked to hold that ... the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws ... abridging freedom of the press in the name of 'national security.' ... To find that the President has 'inherent power' to halt the publication of news ... would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make 'secure.' ... The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security ... . The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States#cite_note-... - - [end quote from Wikipedia] - - The U.S Constitution's First Amendment mentioned the only form of mass communication then in existence: The " [printing] press" Subsequent years added its protects to the telegraph, the telephone, radio, television, fax, email, and all others. - - Jim Bell ×