Josh Fox, the director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary Gasland, was arrested by Capitol Hill police today as he and his crew of journalists attempted to film a public hearing on a controversial natural gas issue.

House Republican leadership directed Capitol Hill police to detain the film crew. Approximately 16 officers entered the room. Apparently there were objections to Fox and the crew not having proper credentials (which, if given the opportunity, could have been easily obtained).

Zach Carter at Huffington Post has a detailed account, which he has been updating. (Politico also has decent coverage.)

I have received dozens of tweets and emails about this (and the Huffington Post article in particular) and I would like to caution readers against attributing these events to any conspiratorial efforts at keeping the hearing secret. Fracking is a nasty practice that involves nasty corporate interests, and Homeland Security has been spying on screenings of Gasland, but I don’t think that’s why this happened. I don’t suspect this is about being pro-fracking or anti-environmentalist.

I think the reality is far less sexy: politicians like to think they have a monopoly on power, and don’t like that power challenged.

In other words, they behaved irrationally because they are bullies and thugs. I don’t mean that as mere name calling. Events like this need to be understood in the context of the bigger assault on journalists. (Something I had personal experiences with recently).

There’s a reason that the United States fell 27 places to #47 in Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index.

I doubt this will deter Fox and his crew. But maybe it will bump up sales of the Gasland DVD?

UPDATE: Mat McDermott at Treehugger raises similar points in his great post.

The Alyona Show discusses Jordan Halliday, and journalists being labeled as "extremist."

I interviewed with The Alyona Show recently about the prosecution of Jordan Halliday, who was sentenced to 10 months in prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury about his political beliefs, and how my own journalism was labeled as “extremist” in the case.

Check out the video and let me know what you think.

PS: Congrats to Alyona Minkovski for being recognized as one of Forbes Magazine’s “30 Under 30″ influential media figures to watch, and for her in-depth interview with C-Span!

Click here to view the embedded video.

I recently wrote about Jordan Halliday, an animal rights activist who was jailed for refusing to name names before a federal grand jury investigating the release of mink from fur farms. Prosecutors urged a harsh prison sentence because Halliday has publicly vowed to resist the political witch hunt.

In the sentencing memorandum, they said that, while awaiting sentencing, Halliday continued to protest, continued to associate with animal rights activists, and continued to urge activists to support him.

And then prosecutors described to the judge what they said is an even more troubling association.

“Of More Serious Concern”

“Of more serious concern is the fact uncovered by the FBI” that Jordan Halliday was mentioned in a photo caption on this website, they said.

The FBI had given prosecutors an article I wrote titled, “BREAKING: FBI Raids Activist House in Utah, Connected to Iowa ALF Investigation.” I covered this story as it happened, and scooped local press. I was able to do this because, as I noted in the article, “I just got off the phone with multiple housemates who were there witnessing the raid, and who were able to read the warrant.” The housemates called me because I have been reporting on the FBI’s attacks on animal rights and environmental activists since 2001. I later updated the blog post with a photo from the scene that credited Jordan Halliday.

To me, this was Journalism 101 — work fast, then flesh out details and add a photo. To the FBI, this quick work was the evidence of a network of extremists. Prosecutors state in the sentencing memo: “The search warrant was sealed, as is typical, with no warning or public knowledge ahead of the time of service. Nonetheless, photograph taken contemporaneous with the execution of the search warrant service has been attributed to the defendant on the animal rights extremist website” GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

The FBI provided federal prosecutors with a blog post from this website.

Guilty By Association

It is not surprising to see a government sentencing memo try to connect a defendant to “extremists.” I’ve covered this in many, many prosecutions. The intention is to use guilt by association to secure additional prison time. For example, prosecutors will say that Joe Defendant is friends with drug dealers, or that Jane Defendant’s family are in a gang.

In this case, the government labels journalism as extremism.

Prosecutors say that since my article mentioned Halliday in a photo caption, it means he placed himself “above the law” and violated an order to have “No association with animal group[s] A.L.F., E.L.F., Vegan Straight Edge (VSE).” [The ALF and ELF are the underground Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. "Vegan Straight Edge" is a punk lifestyle, not a terrorist group, and I'm having a hard time even typing this explanation without being reminded by these lyrics.]

Packed into that short accusation are two dangerous unstated assumptions:

1. Anyone who takes a photo of law enforcement is associated with those being targeted. Keep in mind that this raid led to no arrests. Yet the government says that merely possessing a photo of it implies criminal association, and is acting “above the law.”
2. Anyone who writes about what the government is doing to animal rights activists is an “animal rights extremist” by extension. This is the most dangerous message being sent by the government. My writing and commentary on civil liberties issues has been featured by NPR, the Los Angeles Times, Mother Jones, and many other of the top media outlets in the country. I have lectured at nearly 100 universities and associations, including Georgetown Law School, Yale Law School, and the House of Democracy and Human Rights in Berlin. My book was awarded a Kirkus Star for “remarkable merit,” and has been praised by Publishers Weekly, Utne, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and many others. I say all this hoping to make clear that if my journalism is being labeled “extremist,” if my entire body of professional work can be reduced to extremism because I ask questions about what the government and corporations are doing, then everyone is at risk.

Chilling Free Speech

If there has been one theme running through all of my work, through every blog post and book chapter and speaking event, it is this: fear. Corporations and politicians are using post-9/11 fears of terrorism to push their political agenda. Fear is being manufactured and manipulated by people in power in order to make people think twice about using their rights.

This chilling effect on First Amendment activity is at the core of lawsuit by the Center for Constitutional Rights challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The vague and overly broad language of the law, and the sweeping attempts of prosecutors to utilize it (such as this grand jury investigation), is unconstitutional not because it has expressly prohibited First Amendment activity, but because it has chilled it.

This is another representation of that constitutional threat, in two ways:

It makes me feel that using my First Amendment rights puts me at risk. Describing journalism as “extremist” in the context of a terrorism investigation is, to put it mildly, unsettling. This isn’t the first time I have learned of surveillance like this. I have previously written about how my writing and speeches have been listed in Counter-Terrorism Unit briefing documents.

More importantly, it makes me feel that using my First Amendment rights puts my sources at risk. When I saw that my work was being used by the FBI and prosecutors against Halliday, it made me sick to my stomach. It’s one thing to see my name in terrorism files, it’s another to see my work being used by prosecutors to punish people I have written about. An old muckraking motto is “comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.” To have my work afflict people who already have the full weight of the U.S. government pressing down upon them goes against everything I believe about this craft.

A Pattern on Behavior

You might be asking: Was the government really trying to send these messages? Or was this a case of bad FBI intelligence and prosecutors who don’t “get it”? (To steal a line from The Daily Show, “Are they evil, or stupid?”)

I don’t know the answer to that question. But I know government officials have done this before. When I visited Daniel McGowan in the Communications Management Unit, prison officials did not threaten me. They did not expressly prohibit me from writing about the experimental prison units. Instead, they told McGowan that if I wrote about the visit he would be punished for my words.

I also know that prosecutors said Jordan Halliday needs to be punished for his “stardom,” so “defendant’s supporters are not emboldened to follow the defendant’s contemptuous ways.” Through these and many other examples, it’s clear that the government is openly trying to send a message.

And so, as I edit this, about to hit “publish,” I keep hesitating. Will writing about this amplify that message of fear? Everything I do depends on the trust I have built with countless activists and their friends and families. What if this makes people afraid to be mentioned on this website?

The mere fact that I have to ask myself those questions is a testament to how much we have lost in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

This pattern of conduct by the FBI and federal prosecutors is nothing less than an attack on the First Amendment, and an attack on journalism. It is an attempt to foster distrust between author and source, and it is an attempt to shake the confidence that one can report freely and without retribution, both of which are essential to any meaningful expression of journalism in a democracy.

A new lawsuit challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as unconstitutional because it has given activists reason to fear that they could be prosecuted as “terrorists” for non-violent civil disobedience, protests, and First Amendment activity.

The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of 5 longtime animal rights activists. The activists say the vague wording of the law, and the corporate-led campaigns against animal rights activism, have made them alter their own advocacy.

The landmark case has implications for all social justice movement, beyond the animal rights activists targeted. It sets a dangerous precedent for labeling anyone who effectively threatens corporate profits a “terrorist.” As the Occupy Wall Street Movement grows rapidly, and has begun reclaiming foreclosed homes from banks and shutting down ports, this lawsuit couldn’t come at a more pressing time. And with the impending passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, the dangers of this parallel legal system for “terrorists” has become strikingly clear.

The lawsuit seeks to strike down the law for violating the First and Fifth Amendments [read the criminal complaint in Blum v. Holder]. Specifically, it argues that the law is unconstitutional for 3 reasons:

1. It is so broad that it has had a chilling effect on free speech. The law hasn’t outlawed animal rights activism, but it has made activists think twice about using their rights. This was the primary point I raised in my Congressional testimony against the law in 2006, and since then the political climate has become even more toxic. The first use of the law was based on activists allegedly chalking slogans on the sidewalk and wearing bandanas. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is an attempt by corporations to use the power of fear in order to silence their opposition.
2. The language is so vague that people can’t decipher what is illegal. The law’s criminalization of “interfering with” the operations of an animal enterprise, or causing a “loss of profits,” leave activists wondering if they could be labeled a terrorist for a successful lawful campaign. This is compounded by the law’s emphasis on “tertiary targeting”: it not only protects animal enterprises,” but any business that does business with an animal enterprise. When politicians, the courts, lawyers, and national organizations cannot agree on the meaning of this law, it is dangerously overbroad.
3. It singles out animal rights activist because of their political beliefs and their effective advocacy. Meanwhile, violence by anti-abortion extremists is not being labeled as terrorism. For more on this: “If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of ‘Terrorism.” Singling out groups of people because of their political beliefs, and restricting their First Amendment rights, is antithetical to a healthy democracy.

Here is a detailed, step-by-step analysis of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act if you are interested. I wanted to focus a bit on the people involved in the lawsuit, though:

Sarahjane Blum has been an animal rights activist for 23 years. She co-founded GourmetCruelty.com in 2003, which exposed the cruelty of the foie gras industry and helped California to ban foie gras farming. According to the lawsuit: “While she had knowingly and openly violated the law many times through acts of non-violent civil disobedience, she was unwilling to face the possibility of prosecution and sentencing as a terrorist. She was stunned that the ethical, important work that she had devoted her life to had been turned overnight into terrorism.”

Ryan Shapiro is now a doctoral candidate at MIT studying the history of political repression against animal rights activists. With Sarahjane Blum, he co-founded GourmetCruelty.com, produced a documentary film, and spoke publicly about his work. He was also friends with the SHAC 7 — a group of activists convicted as terrorists. “Faced with the imprisonment of his friends, and with the passage of the AETA, Mr. Shapiro began to worry that the price for peaceful protest and civil disobedience was one he could not afford to pay.”

Lana Lehr has organized for the welfare of rabbits, and also protested the sale of their fur. After the passage of the AETA, she found herself altering her protest activity and censoring her words and her writing online.

Lauren Gazzola is one of the SHAC 7. She recounts a lecture she gave at a law school class where she censored herself from encouraging activists to follow her advocacy, because she feared her words would be used as evidence of conspiracy to violate the AETA.

Jay Johnson, who has confirmed that he has been placed on a terrorist watchlist, has witnessed the chilling effect on grassroots animal rights activism. After the case of the SHAC 7 and the passage of the AETA, protest attendance plummeted. For instance, he recounts a protest against a company affiliated with Huntingdon Life Sciences: “When he arrived at the site of the planned protest, he was met by over 40 police officers in riot gear, and not a single other protestor.”

In the interest of full disclosure, I have known several of these plaintiffs for well over a decade, as activists and as friends.

I point this out because I want to take the liberty of saying that this lawsuit was not an easy decision for them. There’s of course a fear of drawing a giant red target on one’s back, but the primary concern of these plaintiffs is not themselves — it’s the animals, and those advocating on their behalf. All of these activists are deeply committed to the animal rights movement, and they had to answer the uncomfortable question: “Does acknowledging fear draw even more attention to it? Could this make even more people afraid?”

But this lawsuit is more about courage than fear. It is about these plaintiffs and the CCR having the courage to acknowledge that this political climate exists, that what we are experiencing is real and it is valid, and that we can’t move forward by pretending it doesn’t affect us. It is to say, unequivocally: “Yes, we have been afraid. Yes, we have all known fear. And now it is time to fight back.”

Florida Senator Jim Norman wants to stop activists from exposing factory farms.

Earlier this year, four states were considering “ag gag” bills to criminalize photography, or video or audio recording, of what goes on at factory farms, animal experimentation labs, and other facilities. They all failed, but as I have been saying for months, it will only be a matter of time before these bills are modified and reintroduced.

In Florida, the first has just resurfaced. Senator Jim Norman, who said undercover investigations are “almost like terrorism,” has a new bill. SB 1184 revises a few agriculture statutes that deal with stormwater management, feedstuffs, and citrus harvesting equipment. Then it ends with a transparent attack on the First Amendment.

SB 1184 says:

A person may not knowingly enter upon any nonpublic area of a farm and, without the prior written consent of the farm’s owner or the owner’s authorized representative, operate the audio or video recording function of any device with the intent of recording sound or images of the farm or farm operation.

It makes exemptions for law enforcement and government employees but, of course, there are no exemptions for journalists or activists. That’s the point. Norman filed his original bill at the urging of an egg farmer, Wilton Simpson, who wanted to stop activists from gathering video footage to use in a state ballot initiative against factory farm cruelty (similar to the successful California initiative).

These ag gag bills created quite an uproar when they were introduced. Most people are unaware, though, that dozens of states already have designer laws protecting factory farms from activists.

Florida “Eco-Terrorism” Law Put to Use

Florida already has a law called the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (FL ST § 828.40 – 43). It passed in 1993 at the request of industry, ostensibly to target groups like the Animal Liberation Front who cause “physical disruption” or the loss of property. It has sat on the shelf for years. That is until this month, when an animal rights activist was charged with a felony in what seems to be the very first use of the law.

Chris Lagergren was arrested at gunpoint by an off-duty Miami cop outside of the Marine Mammal Conservancy in Key Largo.

So what was he allegedly doing that prompted an armed cop, 100 miles outside of his jurisdiction, to arrest him at gunpoint? And what was so dangerous that Lagergren’s bond was set at $30,000?

According to the police report, he had been taking photographs and was tampering with a fence:

R. Lingenfelser [the president of the facility] stated he has seen Chris for the past two weeks standing on the Hampton Inn property, video taping the Marine Mammal property and its staff.

Lingenfelser says he saw Lagergren and another individual attempting to dismantle a fence, and called the police. He said the FBI had warned him that Lagergren, a well-known activist in the area, ”is going to attempt to release any caged animals [or] mammals into their natural habitat” as part of the Animal Liberation Front, a “domestic terrorist organization.”

This isn’t the first time Lingenfelser has had run-ins with photographers. He previously threatened a photographer with a felony for taking photos of whales.

Lingenfelser may not be a credible source, but as Carlos Miller wrote on the photography site Pixiq: “That’s not to say Lagergren wasn’t trying to free the whales that day… But until they catch him doing something more than just taking photos or trespassing, they should treat him like any other suspect arrested on misdemeanor charges.”

Lagergren is facing up to five years in prison.

Making Bad Laws Even Worse

Many of these original state laws were passed under the auspices on targeting the “radicals,” underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front. It is quite clear, though, that existing laws have already gone too far, and are disproportionately targeting non-violent activists. And while all this is occurring, industry groups are relentlessly pushing to go even further, and transparently target First Amendment activity.

This is the model. This is how corporations and the politicians who represent them are chipping away at constitutional rights. It begins with laws targeting the “terrorists” (who, at the very worst, have damaged property) and then, bit by bit, year by year, the net widens as it wraps up an ever-growing group of people, such as those who photograph facilities that have sent whales to Sea World, and those who expose animal cruelty on factory farms.

Moving forward, people like Senator Norman, the FBI, and industry groups will do everything they can to keep your focus on activists like Mercy for Animals, the Humane Society, and Chris Lagergren. Instead, we need to keep our focus on them, and ask ourselves:

What are they trying to hide?

Want to take action? Sign the petition for Chris Lagergren. And contact Florida senators and urge them to oppose SB 1184.

I wrote an article for Truthout about how, before the dust had even settled at ground zero, corporations and politicians were trying to use the tragedy of September 11th to label environmentalists as “eco-terrorists.” Here’s an excerpt:

On September 12, 2001, as emergency crews searched for survivors, Rep. Greg Walden warned Congress that “eco-terrorists” posed a threat “no less heinous than what we saw occur yesterday here in Washington and in New York.” He was not alone: Rep. Don Young publicly speculated that the attack might have actually been the work of environmentalists. A month later, The Washington Times called for war against the “eco-al-Qaeda.”

Comments like this were not gaffes. They were part of a carefully coordinated campaign that had been in the works long before 9/11. When planes hit the Twin Towers nearly ten years ago, most Americans saw an unprecedented tragedy. For some corporations and politicians, it was an unprecedented opportunity.

Read the full article: The “Eco-al-Qaeda”? September 11 Ushered in War on “Eco-Terrorism” and Civil Liberties

Spokespersons for Sarah Palin and Tea Party groups have bristled at the suggestion that their violent rhetoric may have contributed to the recent shooting in Arizona that left six people dead and Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition. The topic is, for the most part, being treated with kid gloves in the press, and the “terrorist” label is conspicuously absent from the discussion.

However, animal rights and environmental activists have been labeled as “terrorists,” and sent to prison, for much, much less.

The murder attempt of Gabrielle Giffords needs to be put in a political context: Sarah Palin’s PAC used this map with gun targets on lawmakers, including Giffords; Palin has repeatedly used the rallying cry “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”; Tea Partiers have carried assault rifles to political rallies; and militia members have urged followers to vandalize the offices of politicians (including Giffords), which they have done.

As I have reported here many times previously, none of this is being labeled terrorism by the government. Meanwhile, the animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

To draw an even more specific comparison: the SHAC 7 were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for running a website which posted the names and addresses of individuals tied to the animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. They were not charged with any act of property destruction, they were charged with “conspiracy” on the grounds that they should be held accountable for the actions of others in the same movement.

To be clear, I am not arguing that Sarah Palin should be accused of terrorism. However, such a stark hypocrisy needs to be addressed.

Simply put:

If Sarah Palin cannot be held responsible for the actions of those who visit her website, neither can animal rights activists.

And if animal rights activists are terrorists for running a website listing “targets,” then Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin, who have gone much further, must be labeled terrorists as well.

UPDATE: Well, it was only a matter of time. At least one person is proposing prosecuting Palin as a terrorist and using the SHAC 7 case as justification. It’s this type of sweeping application that SHAC 7 attorneys have been warning about for years.

Today Bank of America announced it would no longer handle any financial transactions for Wikileaks. The news comes after Paypal, Mastercard, Amazon, and other corporations have done the same. It’s not surprising, considering Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told CNBC yesterday that the group plans to release information about banks that will show “unethical practices.”

Rather than holding corporations accountable for putting their private interests above public interests, politicians are predictably saying it’s “Un-American” to support Wikileaks and demand checks and balances on government power.

I was on The Alyona Show last night talking about this, and Time magazine’s absurd decision to name Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg “Person of the Year” rather than take a risk promoting an “un-American” figure like Julian Assange. (Time truly is on the cutting edge of 2007.)

See also “The Top 5 Myths & Lies from Wikileaks Opponents”.

The Obama administration has convened a secretive grand jury to pursue criminal charges against Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Some talking heads and politicians have called for his assassination. Meanwhile, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow on the “Espionage Act and the legal and constitutional issues raised by Wikileaks.”

Most Americans, it seems, are completely fine with this. According to an ABC and the Washington Post poll, about 70 percent of people say Wikileaks “harms the public interest, and 60 percent say Assange is a criminal.

The results are unsettling. I’m very concerned about the remaining 30-40 percent of you: it seems that you actually want to know what your government is doing. You seem to think that journalists who expose such things are doing their job, rather than committing a crime.

What’s going on, here?

Listen, folks: You don’t want to know about your government. Really, you don’t. It’s easier for everyone involved. Here are three reasons why:

1. Ignorance is easier for you personally. It’s so unsettling to know what the government is doing. When Wikileaks exposes how U.S. contractors threw a party for Afghan security with trafficked boys, it just… well, it really puts a damper on your holiday plans! Don’t worry about it. You don’t want to know about things like this, because learning about them is the first step to caring about them, and who has time to care? There are only 11 shopping days till Christmas, for chrissakes. Besides, I’m sure there were very good reasons for exploiting those boys.
2. Ignorance is easier for journalists. We don’t want this whole “exposing corruption” thing to become a trend. The press does a very good job of repeating government soundbites, and in this age of uncertainty we don’t need to mess up a good thing. If you are in need of a good website to visit online, might I suggest these cute kittens? OMG srsly sooooo cute!
3. Ignorance is much, much easier for people in power. Folks, there’s a reason that people are in power. It’s because they’re smarter and better than us. We can’t try to comprehend the decisions they make in our name. Who are we to question what government is doing? If we want to be safe, we need to stop asking so many damn questions. You know what happens when you ask questions? The terrorists win.

As a nation, almost all of us are on the same page. But there are some stragglers. Please reach out to them (here are some talking points about Wikileaks).

We need to come together, with one voice. We need to rise up, America, and vigorously defend our own ignorance.

The full weight of the U.S. government is being brought down upon Wikileaks, and mainstream media outlets have predictably been repeating the misinformation campaigns of those in power.

Here are the top 5 myths and lies we’re being told:

“Wikileaks is recklessly publishing documents without thinking of the consequences.”

This is a flat-out lie. Wikileaks displays quite clearly on its website that only about 1,000 of the 250,000 diplomatic cables in its possession have been released. Nearly all of those 1,000 documents were first released to mainstream news organizations, and Wikileaks published the ones the news outlets requested. On top of that, the documents were redacted as journalists deemed appropriate. If you want to blame Wikileaks for “recklessly” releasing government secrets, blame the news organizations for “recklessly” deeming them newsworthy.

“Wikileaks is a criminal organization.”

Wikileaks has not been charged with any crime. Not one. There has been tough talk from politicians calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization, and urging prosecution under the Espionage Act, but it has been only talk. In fact, a report by the Congressional Research Service, the independent investigative arm of Congress, has said that such prosecution would legally and politically unwise.

Instead, Wikileaks is being “prosecuted” outside of the courts, outside of the law, by public relations smear campaigns.

“This is not about freedom of the press. Wikileaks is not journalism.”

In addition to publishing documents supplied by whistleblowers, the staff of Wikileaks also reviews this information, provides commentary, and facilitates the flow of this information to news organizations. Wikileaks is not a conventional, old-guard media outlet. But that doesn’t matter. It is applying the methodology and spirit of journalism to a digital age. Wikileaks is providing checks and balances on government power.

“Full transparency as envisioned by Wikileaks would jeopardize government operations and make all of us less safe.”

There are a lot of lies and half-truths built into this line of reasoning. First among them is the notion that 1) Wikileaks exists to make all government secrets public and 2) that Wikileaks CAN make all government secrets public. The fact is that the Obama administration has trumpeted “transparency” while the government has grown more secretive than ever before. Even if Wikileakers had the desire (which there has been no indication that they do), it is simple not possible to republish and analyze all of these documents. This is not about “full-transparency,” it is not about us monitoring every single thing that every single government official does. It is about the freedom of news organizations to decide which of these documents are of the public interest.

“Wikileaks is sabotaging diplomatic relations and making it harder for governments to do their jobs.”

This final theme is not so much a myth as it is a total bastardization of the purpose of journalism. Yes, news that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authorized UN spying has probably made it harder for her to maintain positive relationships with some countries. Yes, news that U.S. contractors hired young boys to entertain Afghan police put another black mark on the image of the U.S. But you know what? It should.

Journalists should make it harder for politicians to do their jobs. This is about checks and balances on government power. Journalists who say the organization has “gone too far” are operating from a tepid notion of the craft: that journalists should speak truth to power only up until the point that truth doesn’t make people in power look too bad.

To be clear, Wikileaks is not a perfect organization. It has flaws. Plenty of them. And so do the people involved. However, it is putting forward a radical new model of journalism. And the attacks on Wikileaks have prompted a proportionate response. A group of hackers, or “hacktivists,” calling themselves “Anonymous” have launched an attack against those who threaten freedoms of the press. They started by taking down Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal. Now, as the image above indicates, they’re calling for a new, more radical tactic: journalism.

They are encouraging people to review the Wikileaks documents, find news of corruption, write about it, and inform others. Appropriately, “Anonymous” has used Orwell as its rallying cry:

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”