In a democratic society, providing the people with all the information they need to act as informed citizens is of the utmost importance. By extension then, a free press is fundamental to  democracy and, in the United States, is protected by the First Amendment. Thus, the press can also act as a fourth “check” on the government, by keeping a watchful eye on those in power and reporting wrongdoing directly to the citizens. However, this water is muddied by the fact that  journalists are still citizens themselves and are subject to the nation’s laws and reliant on the government to keep them safe. Throughout the history of the U.S. there have been a number of times where journalists have had to make difficult choices between obeying the law or fulfilling their journalistic obligations, particularly when it comes to the publication of classified documents obtained by whistle-blowers.

One of the most notable examples from modern history is that of journalist Glenn Greenwald’s decision to publish classified documents provided by Edward Snowden, a former intelligence contractor at the National Security Agency (NSA). In 2013, Snowden leaked documents to The Guardian revealing that the U.S. government was conducting warrantless data collection and surveillance of millions of Americans though a program titled “PRISM.” The project was meant to locate those in the U.S believed to harbor terrorist intentions and/or sentiments before they have the chance to act on them. Nonetheless, Snowden believed this mass surveillance to be a violation of citizens’ constitutional rights, something the people had a right to know was happening.

After Greenwald published the information regarding PRISM in The Guardian on June 7, 2013, the U.S. government promptly charged Snowden with two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 which are conveying classified information to an unauthorized party and disclosing communications intelligence information. Snowden was also charged with theft of government property (Gerstein, 2013). Snowden fled the country before he could be arrested and is currently living in Russia. In an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, House Speaker John Boehner calls Snowden a traitor and maintained that “the disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk” (Blake, 2013). Additionally, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that Snowden caused “significant harm” because exposure of the information could compromise the military’s position to American enemies who are now aware of the country’s technological capabilities.

Furthermore, Snowden cannot be held solely responsible. He may have been the one to leak the documents, but it was Greenwald who actually published and distributed the classified information. Here, those who disagree with Snowden’s and Greenwald’s actions argue that sometimes the government must resort to ethically ambiguous actions for the greater good. Not only did the two break the law as citizens of the United States, but their decision to leak the PRISIM documents directly interferes with important and potentially dangerous geo-political matters that everyday citizens cannot understand. By acting recklessly under the guise of ethical superiority, the very citizens Snowden and Greenwald wanted to protect would now be at risk.

On the other hand, not everyone was quick to disparage Snowden and Greenwald. Daniel Ellsburg, another whistle-blower, argued:

Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong. I agree wholeheartedly. More than 40 years after my unauthorized disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, such leaks remain the lifeblood of a free press and our republic. One lesson of the Pentagon Papers and Snowden’s leaks is simple: secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts (Ellsburg, 2013).

From this point of view, Snowden and Greenwald actually did a service for the American people because conducting mass surveillance and data collection of citizens without their consent is a huge government overreach that the people had a right to know about. Especially for Greenwald, it was not only ethical to publish the classified information, but it would be unethical for him not to. Because the primary purpose of the free press is to serve as a check on the U.S. government, he was simply fulfilling his duties as a journalist.

As Snowden told The Guardian: “A consensus is growing that the status quo is no longer tenable, that things must change and the public has to have a say in the way the government operates its surveillance apparatus and where the lines are drawn on the boundaries of our rights” (Rusbridger & MacAskill, 2014). Because power in a democracy is supposed to reside with the people, for the government to secretly spy on Americans is not only an invasion of personal privacy, but an affront to our rights as democratic citizens. Thus, had Snowden and Greenwald decided to ignore the information rather than leaking it, they may be setting a dangerous precedent for the future: That government officials can act however they please, even at the expense of the people, and face no accountability for it. How can citizens trust the media to report the truth on anything if journalists choose to be complicit in government secrecy?

Overall, it remains unclear whether or not it was ethical for Snowden and Greenwald to publish the classified document. On one hand, there are concerns about the situation the government or military may be put in by such actions and the safety of the public as a result. On the other hand, there are opposing concerns about the press ability to act as a check on the government and provide information regarding potential overreaches. In such situations concerning whistle-blowers and classified information, journalists and editors must weigh whether or not the information is valuable enough to the American people for them to risk potential danger from foreign enemies or the personal consequences that come with breaking the law.

Discussion Questions:

1. What are the central values in conflict when evaluating whether to publish classified information?

2. Consider other instances of publishing whistle-blower documentation throughout history, e.g. the release of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times, the role played by The Washington Post in the Watergate scandal, etc. Would you evaluate these cases the same or differently from that of the PRISIM release? Why or why not?

Further Information:

Blake, A. (11 June 2013). “Boehner: Snowden Is ‘a Traitor’.” The Washington Post. Available at: www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/06/11/boehner-snowden-is-a-traitor/?arc404=true.

BBC News. (20 August 2013). “Edward Snowden: Timeline.” BBC News. Available at: www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23768248.

Ellsberg, D. (7 July 2013). “NSA Leaker Snowden Made the Right Call.” The Washington Post. Available at: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html.

Gerstein, J. (22 June 2013) “Snowden Charged with 3 Felonies.” Politico Available at: www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-charged-nsa-093179

Greenwald, G. & MacAskill, E. (7 June 2013). “NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others.” The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

Rusbridger, A. & MacAskill, E. (18 July 2014). “Edward Snowden Interview – The Edited Transcript.” The Guardian. Available at: www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/-sp-edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-interview-transcript.