Senate caught defacing Snowden's Wikipedia page

[Drew Lehman]

Usually the only wiki we associate with Edward Snowden is WikiLeaks. However, in a hilarious turn of events, an IP address linked to the United States Senate was caught defacing Edward Snowden's Wikipedia article last evening. The "less than neutral" edit was to change the lead sentence from this:

Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American dissident who leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.

to this:

Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American traitor who leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.

http://www.voicesonthesquare.com/articles/2013/08/03/us-senate-ip-caught-defacing-edward-snowdens-wikipedia-entry

[Zachary Elwyn]

Wouldn't that count as defamation?  

According to District of Columbia law, defamation claims have four elements:

1. the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
2. the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party;
3. the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence; and
4. either the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or itspublication caused the plaintiff special harm.

Pretty sure ES hasn't been (and will not ever be) charged with nor convicted of treason, and someone working for the Senate would presumably know that.

---

From: Drew Lehman <dle...@digitatech.com>
To: cybe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:52 PM
Subject: [Cyberia] Senate caught defacing Snowden's Wikipedia page

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cyberia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cyberia-l+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[David Bolduc]

He's now a public figure who inserted himself into public debate.  Do we really want nameless Senate staffers hounded for mouthing off about politics?

And hey, remember the "General Betray Us" ad?  Similar, no?

[Warren Agin]

Well, the US Constitution places a fairly specific and limited definition on the term treason, but I suspect in a few other countries they would have already put a bullet through his head for what he did. Its a more accurate portrayal that the term "dissident" since that indicates a disagreement with the group's beliefs, rather than specific actions. 

[Zachary Elwyn]

Well, saying someone is a traitor certainly sounds defamatory, and the whole "public figure" thing doesn't count when the statement was made with "actual malice", since the description is blatantly a "blatantly false statment made in reckless regard of the truth", per the NYT v Sullivan decision.

And no "General Betray Us" does not accuse Petraeus of committing a crime.  As to whether it's a good idea, no, obviously not.

Z

PS- IANAL, so if what I'm saying here is totally misinformed, please do let me know.

---

From: David Bolduc <boldu...@gmail.com>
To: cybe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Cyberia] Senate caught defacing Snowden's Wikipedia page

He's now a public figure who inserted himself into public debate.  Do we really want nameless Senate staffers hounded for mouthing off about politics?

And hey, remember the "General Betray Us" ad?  Similar, no?

On Aug 13, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Zachary Elwyn <bink...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Wouldn't that count as defamation?  

According to District of Columbia law, defamation claims have four elements:

1. the  defendant  made a false and  defamatory  statement concerning the  plaintiff ;
2. the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party;
3. the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least  negligence ; and

1. either the statement was  actionable  as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or its publication  caused the plaintiff special harm.

Pretty sure ES hasn't been (and will not ever be) charged with nor convicted of treason, and someone working for the Senate would presumably know that.

---

From: Drew Lehman <dle...@digitatech.com>
To: cybe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:52 PM
Subject: [Cyberia] Senate caught defacing Snowden's Wikipedia page

Usually the only wiki we associate with Edward Snowden is WikiLeaks. However, in a hilarious turn of events, an IP address linked to the United States Senate was caught defacing Edward Snowden's Wikipedia article last evening. The "less than neutral" edit was to change the lead sentence from this:

Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American dissident who leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.

to this:

Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American traitor who leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.

http://www.voicesonthesquare.com/articles/2013/08/03/us-senate-ip-caught-defacing-edward-snowdens-wikipedia-entry

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cyberia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cyberia-l+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cyberia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cyberia-l+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[David Bolduc]

On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Zachary Elwyn <bink...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, saying someone is a traitor certainly sounds defamatory, and the whole "public figure" thing doesn't count when the statement was made with "actual malice", since the description is blatantly a "blatantly false statment made in reckless regard of the truth", per the NYT v Sullivan decision.

I don't think Sullivan/Westmoreland line of cases gets you there.

"Blatantly false"?  How so?  Has it been proved that he's not a traitor, even under some stretched interpretation of the law?  Does the publisher actually doubt he's guilty of treason?  Isn't treason a crime he could be accused of?  IIRC, Manning was indicted, though not convicted, on "giving aid and comfort to the enemy, '" which is effectively treason.

(While Dianne Feinstein says it's treason, the WaPo only goes as far as "probably didn't commit treason," but that's not going to get you to "reckless disregard," let alone "actual malice." <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/no-edward-snowden-probably-didnt-commit-treason/>)

And note that some of the the charges made in the ad (describing actions made against civil rights protestors by Alabama police under Public Safety Commissioner Sullivan) in Sullivan were retracted and were not conclusions, or interpretations, but were actually false.

But really, the actual malice" test isn't one you're likely to be able to pass here.

And no "General Betray Us" does not accuse Petraeus of committing a crime.

And yet, similar, I think.  A General "constantly at war with the facts" cooking the books for the White House."  Being a general and betraying us not a crime?  Better tell Benedict Arnold's counsel quick. ;)

But if you don't like those, try googling "bush traitor."  3,740,000 results, including "bush-treason.blogspot.com," many of them from folks now claiming the term can't be applied to Snowden).  Snowden doesn't get as many, at 740,000, but hey, it's early.  You'll get similar results coupling Kerry, Cheney, Kennedy, Palin, McCain, Obama, and almost everyone on whom anyone has a political opinion with "treason."

But in the end, you're on a very, very slippery First Amendment slope here, one on which you probably wouldn't like others who might disagree with you to be making decisions.

[Zachary Elwyn]

Well, at this point, and at the time the change was made, ES hasn't been charged with nor convicted of treason, so by my reasoning, he isn't one.

I guess my issue is that calling ES a traitor is to convict him of an actual crime that he's innocent of, legally speaking, at least as of today.

If he'd been called a "Scumbag" or a filthy terrorist-lover or whatever, that would be in the form of an opinion.  Calling someone a traitor would seem to be in the same category as calling someone a serial killer or a pedophile, since those are actual crimes, and not opinions.

The bar for treason is pretty damn high- "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" isn't something that seems to fit the facts here.  Sedition would seem to more closely fit the bill, to me.

I'm sure you're right from a serious legal perspective, and again, I'm not even a 1L, so obviously I defer to those with the actual education to speak on this, just my gut reaction is that "traitor" is a term that requires a higher form of proof.

---

From: David Bolduc <boldu...@gmail.com>
To: cybe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:44 PM