Talk:Espionage Act of 1917

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enforcement of the Act section contradiction with Eugene V. Debs[edit]

In the Enforcement of the Act section of the article it says that Eugene V. Debs was pardoned by President Warren G. Harding. in the Eugene V. Debs article it says that Harding did not issue a pardon but only commuted the sentence. I am not sure which one is correct. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 21:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His sentence was commuted. I've made the correction and removed the contradiction tag. The entry for Espionage Act of 1917 is in serious need of a re-write. I'll give it a shot.
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US v. Morison CBS[edit]

I struck the following text:

In 1988, United States v. Morison CBS, judges recognized that in order to prevent the Act from merely being used to protect government officials from embarrassment, some showing needed to be made the release of specific information had the potential to harm U.S. interests. "This must be so", said Judge James Dickson Phillips "to avoid converting the Espionage Act into the simple Government Secrets Act which Congress has refused to enact." United States v. Morison CBS

I didn't think it was particularly on point, as it was in a concurrence in a circuit court proceeding, signed by only one judge. Judge Phillips went on to say that the government had met its burden of proof in this case. The majority wanted a more lenient standard for the government; Phillips was dissenting from that view. The use of this quotation is like quoting the dissent in Roe in an article about abortion laws. Kingnavland (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips is asserting that Congress saw at least a theoretical distinction between the Espionage Act and a Government Secrets Act. In his concurring remarks, he attempts to establish a minimal (albeit vague) legal standard to tell them apart in the future. It has did this by way of referring to the prior actions of Congress itself, and not by citing personal beliefs about morality, or equivocating on the exact meaning of a term in order to obtain new outcome; clearly, he already agreed with the outcome. This seems quite unlike the Roe analogy. Whether Phillips succeeded in framing future interpretations remains to be seen, but it is at least likely enough and important enough to warrant inclusion in this article. A better analogy would be citing judicial remarks that shape which standards of evidence are used, when, and why (e.g.: "beyond a reasonable doubt" versus "clear and convincing evidence", versus "preponderance of evidence"). Seen this way, I hope you'd agree Judge Phillips remarks are germane here. I'm not sure what could make this much clearer in my citation other than to call attention to the fact that the were concurring remarks. If that contextualizes reference in a way that makes its relevance more obvious, then let's consider the article improved. JonDePlume (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you are the only one to deem this significant. You cite your original research, not the remarks of a legal scholar, commentator, or other observer. If what the judge says is a point of dispute, then add a section on the dispute and cite the parties. Who is out there claiming that the Act should be used in the manner of an Government Secrets Act? I note as well that the meaning of a "Government Secrets Act" remains unclear, only implied by Phillips' remarks, which might well confuse the reader. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on the cultural importance of this distinction by prominent figures turned up a rather nice article by John Dean on FindLaw. I'll work this in, along with other such links, so we can help prevent further confusion. I will say that the presumption of "original research" doesn't sound particularly charitable, particularly since the John Dean article turned up on my first try using the google search: "Espionage Act versus Government Secrets Act", along with plenty of others. I do take your idea of new section as a good one, but had you simply felt the need for more references (and possibly a reorg), I think it would be more in keeping with the deletion policy of Wikipedia to solicit this first, before treating the entire body of text as unsalvageable and removing it. I believe this is especially true in the politically charged context of the Wikileaks / Julian Assange case, where opinions tend to polarize, and various factions have resorted to absolutist thinking, revisionism, and outright censorship of opposing views. A "make it perfect or get rid of it completely" policy works quite well on some articles, but runs a clear risk partisan thrashing on others. For that reason, I think it makes more sense to err on the side of "iterative refinement/augmentation" in this case, lest we invite someone who actually is a vandal to attempt something foolish. JonDePlume (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other remarks for later inclusion in the new section can be found in an analysis of AIPAC, Espionage Act & First Amendment by First Amendment scholar Ronald K. L. Collins, where he states:

But the government, the judge stressed, cannot simply invoke the Espionage Act in a talismanic way. It must prove that “national security is genuinely at risk” and it must likewise show that those charged under the act knew that its disclosure could injure the national defense. Similarly, the government must show that its officials did not authorize the leaking of any such information.

Thus, in United States v. Rosen, Judge T. S. Ellis, III echoes the principal of limitation advanced by Phillips in United States v. Morison CBS JonDePlume (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Julian Assange Case[edit]

Not discussing any improvements to the article, forum type talk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need to understand how and under which clauses of this federal act the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, can propose to prosecute Mr Assange, a foreign national who has apparently committed no crime on Americal soil. Or is the United States of America so all-powerful that it can reach beyond its own national boundaries into the jurisdictions of other independent national states? Just what interpretation is being applied here: does the commission of an - as yet unproved - crime abroad, whose effects are as yet quite unknown (apart from causing some acute embarrassment and inconvenience to a number of international figures) give the USA the entitlement to persecute (I use this word with intent, because that is precisely what is happening) a foreign citizen because someone in your country believes his actions might impact on the USA?

Most obscene is that certain prominent figures in the USA are advocating an extra-judicial execution of Mr Assange for his perceived 'crime'. span class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff.powers (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 December 2010.

The only mention I have found of the 1917 espionage act being used against Mr. Assange are comments made by Mr. Assange. I have to wonder at this point if his situation should be included with this article. -Phil-

The information you seek is on the page, and a more detailed explanation can be found by following the links on the page. I don't see how I am helping you to overcome your laziness by telling you that Alfred Zehe was arrested and convicted in 1983, even though he was German, and had supposedly committed crimes in Germany and Mexico. The part of the law that perhaps does not apply to Assange as it did to Zehe is that Assange could make a convincing case that he did not intend to cause harm to the US. In fact, he could (and many others would agree with it) make the claim that publishing (not stealing) the documents was designed to strengthen the US by allowing its citizens to be more thoroughly informed- a well informed public is more dangerous to a government than a well armed militia. 124.149.100.88 (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make, my dear sir, is that at this time the only people who have cited the 1917 espionage act are Mr. Assange and his defense team. I am not disputing history or usage of this statute against foreign nationals. At this point, no U.S. official has affirmed that the espionage act will be invoked. Rumors are not facts. -Phil

The fact is that people are asking questions about whether this particular law applies to Assange, and many people will seek information from this page. I was replying to Geoff Powers' question, and I am not your dear anything.124.149.100.88 (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Within reference 64 it states " FN3. The defendant acknowledges in his further briefing that “the protective principle, though rarely used, had been a part of the jurisprudence of this country both before 1961 and in 1961, when Congress enacted the statutory amendment at issue here.” Under international law, the “protective principle” gives a country the “jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law attaching legal consequences to conduct outside its territory that threatens its security as a state or the operation of its governmental functions, provided the conduct is generally recognized as a crime under the law of states that have reasonably developed legal systems.” Restatement (Second) of Foreign Relations § 33 (1965). " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SHIELD Act[edit]

Needs better sourcing and then better writing. Here's one source: NPR: Wikileaks, the Law and the Press. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed references to Reagan Administration[edit]

I changed the sub-title of "Reagan Administration" to "1980s" and removed other references to "Reagan Administration", since no other administration is named. It may be better to go through this and change all the headings to the names of the administration that was in charge at the time. Since it is a Presidential appointee, the Attorney General, that would charge someone under this act, it would make sense to organize the article in this way. Since that would take a lot of time (and change the flow of the page) I thought it best to see what you all think. By decade? Administration? Other method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.240.20 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Espionage Act of 1917[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Espionage Act of 1917's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rad1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden[edit]

It's premature to add Snowden until he's been indicted, but... I'm having trouble making sense of this quote from the Washington Post: "This White House [Obama] is responsible for bringing six of the nine total indictments ever brought under the 1917 Espionage Act. Snowden will be the seventh individual when he is formally indicted." [1] I count a lot more than nine in this article. So what are they talking about? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Washington Post article is extremely problematic, since the actual 'statistic' is the number of indicted "government officials providing information to the media" under the Espionage Act, as noted in this pre-Snowden affair New York Times article: Blurred Line Between Espionage and Truth Moreover, since this article seems to be either the main or only source for this Justice Department indictment document (linked by the NY Times, Guardian, etc), that false point is now pervasively quoted in relation to Snowden's case, even though he was a contractor at the time and not a federal employee or official.

It's also possible many journalists refer to this Wikipedia page and its specific list of 'nine indictments' under the label "Persons considered whistleblowers and charged under the Act", in the See More section. The claim those on the list are 'considered whistleblowers' is unsourced and out of place for an article on the Espionage Act itself. There are many people mentioned in the article who were not government employees but indicted for communicating with the media, or in the case of Eugene V. Debs, charged with violating the new Act in part for publicly criticizing it. (U.S. Congress passes Espionage Act) But more particularly, Snowden's whistleblower status is highly debated among the press and legal experts. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] AveVeritas (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done This issue is now clarified in our Wikipedia article under the subsection 21st Century, which explains: "Under the Obama administration, seven Espionage Act prosecutions have been related not to traditional espionage but to either withholding information or communicating with members of the media. Out of a total eleven prosecutions under the Espionage Act against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media, seven have occurred since Obama took office." JohnValeron (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden is not and has never been a 'whistleblower'. According to a recently released House Congressional Investigation into Snowden's activities Mr Snowden took no official action, notified none of his superiors, or complied with ANY requirements of the Whistleblower Act regarding any concerns over privacy or NSA activity. NONE. To call Snowden a 'whistleblower' is factually false and an intentional whitewash of his 'tremendous damage to US national security' to quote the report.65.49.176.54 (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations / References[edit]

In my opinion this article requires more (if not more, have existing) citations or references to cover the article. Yes, you are asking yourself what am I trying to say? I'll break it down... The quote from President Woodrow Wilson is that cited or referenced by No. 4? Which citation or reference is the two points after "It made it a crime:"? The second paragraph in Amendments, which reference? First paragraph in "History: World War I". Paragraph 2, in "Red Scare, Palmer Raids, mass arrests, deportations" the last paragraph in the same section. Now to the "Mid-20th century Soviet spies", first and second paragraph. The majority of "Soviet spies, late 20th century" does it need additional? The second containing "Other spies of the 1990s". Paragraph 3 in "21st century". I hope someone can help me with this. Maybe the citations or references can be moved around or new added. Adamdaley (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[21st century]

Hello,

First time I write to WP. I am a true fan of knowledge accessible to all, so supporter of WP.Therefore I must react when I see wrongful information. These errors must be changed rapidly so the WP can remain truthful. Here's the error:

"Under the Obama administration, seven Espionage Act prosecutions have been related not to traditional espionage but to either withholding information or communicating with members of the media. Out of a total eleven prosecutions under the Espionage Act against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media, seven have occurred since Obama took office"

Please note AND CHANGE: UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THERE WERE 9 INDIVIDUALS CHARGED WITH ESPIONAGE NOT 7 AS STATED. .

Thank you M 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madiewiki (talk • contribs) 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Espionage Act of 1917. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Espionage Act of 1917. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add an 'In popular culture' section[edit]

Do it. Quaquaquarice (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can add a referenced section then add it yourself. We are not at your disposal to do things you think should be done. ~ GB fan 13:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current events[edit]

The DOJ has made a motion to unseal the warrant for the Mar-a-Lago search. There is a good chance it will implicate the espionage act. As such it would be a good idea to lock down this page to prevent vandalism. 2601:1C0:CB00:931F:4AE:696A:16B1:EC57 (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

The "External links" had eight entries. When adding the 22 from the "See Also", and the eight from the "Further reading", the appendices become crowded.
  • External links
Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
ELCITE: (Not applicable here) Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
What can be done with a dead external link? Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. If not updated in a reasonable time then a dead link should be buried.
Please note also: WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
  • Links moved here for discussion
Secrecy and Security Library, Federation of American Scientists
Excerpt from the original (1917) U.S. Espionage Act
Freedom of Speech, Zechariah Chafee, 1920 (Google Books ebook)
Dead link. The United States v. Rose Pastor Stokes (1918)[permanent dead link] -- Otr500 (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Espionage_Act_of_1917&oldid=1208722427"