Assange has not been denied free speech. He has not been silenced or persecuted by government actors but rather arrested on pre-existing rape allegations, an arrest obligated by the notoriety he attracted to himself.
As the world media debates whether Julian Assange is a cyber-terrorist or the next Daniel Ellsberg, and the U.S. government scrambles to stop his next classified data dump, many of the best outlets to educate the public on the matter are closing up shop.
America and the world must not stand idly by and allow China's contravention of basic human rights -- as exemplified by the imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo -- to be a costless offense.
It is outrageous for any journalist, or respecter of what every American president has claimed is our inalienable, God-given right to a free press, not to join in Assange's defense on the WikiLeaks issue.
The United States government, Amazon, PayPal and the myriad of other players who I am sure will become tangled up in the dissemination of the WikiLeaks' cables could benefit from a simple piece of advice: play it cool.
I recently read a blog post by a distinguished First Amendment lawyer of the view that once the cables were leaked, the U.S. was helpless to act because all prior restraints on publication are a violation of the First Amendment. Baloney.
While the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act has been touted as a way to combat counterfeiting online worldwide, its overly excessive means will surely cause harm beyond posing a threat to free speech.
How would a shield law -- a version of which has passed the House and awaits a vote by the full Senate -- put WikiLeaks out of business? The answer is that it would remove the need that WikiLeaks fills.
As the head of a school, I occasionally deal with student matters where Constitutional rights are invoked as a defense. Sometimes I invite them to do a little research on rights of secondary school students.
While there is broad agreement that the prohibition on state "establishment" of religion implies some sort of separation between religion and politics, it has always been open to interpretation just what form of separation is required.