On the Wikileaks fallout

I can't say I have anything terribly insightful to say about the latest round of Wikileaks, well, leaks -- certainly you've read and digested all the good bits by now. But the fallout continues, and it's just as interesting to watch as the leaks themselves, in many ways. Two things especially strike me:

+leverage of fake memos to support a political agenda: it appears that a number of news organizations in Pakistan were taken in by a faked memo critical of India's military. To a lesser degree, the usual suspects are pointing to the leaked documents as showing insidious intent on the part of Washington to control or undermine them. But it would be an interesting info-war judo move to push fake stories, especially in government-run presses, to make things look worse.

+Julian Assange may be facing spying charges in the US, which pushes fascinating moral questions on his right to publish the leaks. And then -- should the major news outlets that published the leaks also be charged with spying?
The question is whether there might be some other way to legally distinguish between Assange and WikiLeaks, on one hand, and “beneficent” news outlets, on the other. And lest we put too fine a point on it, this is a very big deal; the principal restraint on the scope of the Espionage Act vis-à-vis the media has historically been prosecutorial discretion, not the Constitution. After all, the Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to give the Press Clause of the First Amendment any meaning separate from the Speech Clause, as a result of which it is virtually impossible to say that the First Amendment distinguishes between materials published by a Wiki as compared to by the Paper of Record. If the Constitution doesn’t draw such a line, mightn’t the statute?
There's much more at that link, so do click through.