Assange is free but the struggle for press freedom and whistleblower advocacy continues

Julian Assange is free but will the government now act on David McBride, Richard Boyle and other whistleblowers?

Julian Assange is finally free, marking the end of a long saga that began in 2010 when WikiLeaks released footage of the United States military killing civilians and journalists in Baghdad – an incident regarded by many as a war crime, which saw no charges laid against anyone involved, except for the people who reported the war crimes: Assange and Chelsea Manning. Throughout Assange’s imprisonment, successive Australian governments displayed varying degrees of indifference to his plight, with some politicians vocally supported his release while in opposition, only to retreat from these positions once in power.

Of particularly note was the stance of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard who claimed in 2010 that Assange was “guilty of illegality” – even though no charges had been laid that stage, and also going on to say that she didn’t have a “great deal of respect” for Assange releasing the scores of material depicting possible war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and believed there was “no moral purpose” behind his actions.

This was indicative of the attitudes of many political leaders and mainstream journalists at the time – and continued for most of the time Assange was in jail – and he was left to languish, facing the possibility of execution in the United States, until a significant shift occurred once Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister. While in opposition, Albanese had campaigned on a platform that included justice for Assange, a promise he continued upon assuming office.

The quiet and slow diplomacy was initially met with skepticism and criticism for its sluggishness, but ultimately proved effective, leading to Assange’s release. Jennifer Robinson, Assange’s legal counsel, highlighted the extensive global support for Assange that played a central role in this outcome, as well as Albanese’s leadership and diplomacy, which she credited as instrumental in securing Assange’s freedom.

This event has reignited discussions about the nature of WikiLeaks’ other disclosures, particularly those that influenced the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Critics argue about the appropriateness of the material released against Hillary Clinton during that campaign, but the core issue remains the public’s right to know about the actions of their governments – we can’t pick and choose or have preferences over the type of material that is released, and whether it was 2010 Baghdad attacks or the 2016 U.S. election, governments and the players within the political system need to be held to account. Assange’s release does not negate the divisive views on his actions; rather, it highlights the complexities of freedom of speech and the press.

When considering the broader implications of Assange’s incarceration, it is crucial to weigh up the effect it may have had on journalism, and the charges and prolonged legal battles faced by Assange highlighted the risks journalists endure when exposing governmental misconduct. While opinions on Assange’s methods and motivations vary widely, the principle that underpins his ordeal is the essential right to hold power to account – a principle that vital to a functioning democracy.

Deep flaws in the U.S. Espionage Act: A call for reform and transparency

The charges against Assange have raised debates about the U.S. Espionage Act and its implications on freedom of the press and the right to information. Originally enacted in 1917 amid fears of communist influence following the Russian Revolution, the Espionage Act was intended to protect national security by preventing the sharing of state secrets with foreign governments. However, its application has often extended far beyond these initial intentions, targeting not just spies but also those perceived as ideological threats to the U.S. government.

In Assange’s case, his acceptance and dissemination of classified documents through WikiLeaks was seen as a violation of this act, despite the public interest argument supporting the need for such information to be disclosed. Assange’s U.S. lawyer, Barry Pollack, highlighted this conundrum: acknowledging the technical breach of the law, while also arguing for First Amendment protections for Assange’s actions. This duality highlights the conflict between national security interests and the principles of transparency and freedom of information that are foundational to democratic societies.

The legal battle surrounding Assange also reflects broader concerns about how laws such as the Espionage Act can be used to stifle journalistic practices that are critical of governmental actions. The historical use of the Act against ideological opponents, rather than genuine threats to national security, raises questions about the balance of power and the safeguarding of civil liberties. For instance, the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg during the McCarthy era, who were executed under the auspices of the Espionage Act, still sparks debates in the United States about legal overreach and miscarriages of justice.

In Australia, similar legislation was enacted with the amendment of the Crimes Act in 1926, aimed at suppressing communist activities. This paralleled the U.S. approach, demonstrating a common legislative reaction against perceived ideological threats. The subsequent legal battles and political actions by conservative governments, such as the 1951 referendum in Australia to ban the Communist Party, further illustrate the contentious nature of such laws and their impact on political discourse and individual rights.

Assange’s ordeal, culminating in a plea deal and an implied acknowledgment by the chief judge Ramona Manglona that the application of the Espionage Act may have been misguided in this case, reveals the complexities involved in applying outdated laws to contemporary issues of governance and information dissemination. This case not only highlights the need for legislative reform to better align with current realities and ethical standards but also serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle between governmental authority and the pursuit of truth.

A strange coalition for freedom and transparency

The case of Assange has created an odd coalition across the political spectrum, both in the United States and Australia, demonstrating an uncommon consensus on issues of freedom of speech and the limits of governmental authority. In the U.S., the alignment of figures as ideologically diverse as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marjorie Taylor Greene on Assange’s case highlights a rare bipartisan agreement. Similarly, in Australia, the support for Assange crossed various political boundaries, involving members from the Australian Greens, independents, the Labor Party, and the National Party, including Barnaby Joyce and George Christensen. While there were some MPs from within the Liberal Party’s also supported the release of Assange, the party did oppose a motion advocating for Assange’s return to Australia in May 2024, once again showing them to be on the “wrong side of history”.

This unusual political alignment reveals a significant shift in how issues related to freedom of the press and whistleblowing are perceived across the political landscape. Traditionally viewed through a partisan lens, the Assange saga has prompted a re-evaluation of these issues as fundamentally about democratic rights rather than simple political positions.

Prime Minister Albanese’s role in this scenario has been central to the release of Assange. His involvement has not only been about supporting Assange but also about advocating for the principles of justice and transparency that the case represents. The international dimension of this support, facilitated by diplomatic figures such as the U.K. High Commissioner Steven Smith and U.S. Ambassador Kevin Rudd, illustrates the complexity and global impact of Assange’s situation. The Australian government’s proactive stance under Albanese, offering not just verbal support but also tangible diplomatic assistance, sets a precedent for how such cases might be handled in the future.

The broad and diverse backing for Assange’s release and the criticism of the extended legal proceedings against him highlight a growing public and political acknowledgment of the need for reform in how whistleblowers and journalists are treated. This case has become a focal point for discussions on the balance between national security and the public’s right to know, challenging governments and individuals to reconsider their positions on these pivotal issues.

A media divide and calls for stronger whistleblower protections

The release of Assange is a significant victory for media freedom and a moment of relief for his supporters and advocates of free speech. However, the journey to this outcome was fraught with challenges – over 14 years – and marked by a notable absence of support from many within the mainstream media. Initially, many journalists, including some from ABC – who are now ensconced on the ABC News Breakfast program, effectively managing an early retirement and superannuation package – distanced themselves from Assange, questioning his status as a journalist and expressing indifference or even approval of his potential extradition to the U.S. This stance from parts of the media industry – and there was a clear schism between establishment media and independent media – not only highlighted the divide within journalism about what constitutes legitimate journalistic activity but also highlighted the precarious position of whistleblowers who expose uncomfortable truths.

While Assange’s release is a triumph, it should also highlight the plight of other whistleblowers who continue to face severe consequences for their actions of information the public about government malfeasance. The cases of David McBride and Richard Boyle are particularly alarming. McBride, a former military lawyer, was imprisoned for disclosing information about alleged war crimes by Australian forces in Afghanistan. Boyle, a former Australian Taxation Office employee, faces legal challenges – and a potential 46 years in prison – for revealing aggressive debt collection practices that allegedly led to unfair treatment of taxpayers. Both whistleblowers acted in the public interest, yet found themselves prosecuted rather than protected. Their ongoing prosecutions raise critical questions about the inconsistency of support for whistleblowers and the application of laws meant to shield them.

The Australian government’s approach to whistleblowers such as McBride and Boyle suggests a selective interpretation of what constitutes the public interest. The fact that the Attorney–General, Mark Dreyfus, has not intervened in these cases, despite having the authority to do so, indicates a concerning disregard for the principle of transparency. This inconsistency in handling whistleblowers not only undermines trust in the government’s commitment to justice but also discourages future whistleblowers from coming forward, for fear of reprisals.

It’s important for governments establish robust mechanisms to protect and support whistleblowers, as these individuals play a critical role in a healthy democracy by holding institutions accountable and exposing wrongdoing, and establishing a Public Informant Office could be a step in the right direction. Such a system should ensure that genuine whistleblowers are shielded from retaliation, while also incorporating safeguards against malicious allegations. This dual approach would maintain the integrity of the system while encouraging responsible whistleblowing.

Ultimately, the broader implications of Assange’s case and the ongoing challenges faced by other whistleblowers such as McBride and Boyle offers an opportunity for the governments to re-evaluate how democratic societies treat those who expose the truth. It’s a value that’s instilled from childhood – to speak out against wrongdoing – and this must be upheld by our institutions, ensuring that those who do so are celebrated rather than condemned. The hope remains that the resolution of Assange’s case will bring in a new era of enhanced protections for whistleblowers, reflecting a true commitment to transparency and accountability in governance.