Journalism is sometimes thought as a bit risky in terms of career choice. As a freshman at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, I know this well, and our professors never let us forget it. However, they also don’t let us forget how potentially important journalists — broadly speaking — are to the American people and their right to self-governance. Journalists exist to inform the public by any means necessary.
Whether it yields negative or positive results for those involved, the job of the journalist is to hold those in power accountable, which is what journalist Barrett Brown has attempted to do.
A CNN iReport brought his case to light yet again. Brown has been charged with several crimes and faces a possible 105 years in prison, after he posted a link to concealed information exposing the intelligence analysis firm Stratfor Global Intelligence in December 2011. Among these documents were various names and credit card numbers, which is how the government decided they’d first pin Brown: charging him with credit card theft.
In 2012, Brown received a “forceful visit” from the FBI and the raid — or at least the audio recording — was captured on a webcam. The raid ended up involving Brown’s mother, who was charged with “obstructing a warrant” by retaining evidence in the form of a laptop (she pleaded guilty to the charge last month). The computer contained journalistic sources and works, as well as pieces to a work-in-progress book having to do with surveillance.
Apparently, such content is not to the government’s liking.
I can’t be certain, but it seems as though the Feds are slightly fearful that Brown is onto something. There are more than enough ranting conspiracy theorists crying wolf, constantly. But the difference with Brown is that he’s a serious journalist that, though responsible for no actual hacking or stealing, knows important information when he sees it.
After the FBI’s apparently warranted intrusion, Brown posted a series of videos threatening an agent and his family using fairly colorful language whilst doing so. This, along with his struggle with drugs, makes Brown a victim with whom it is hard to empathize, though a victim he remains.
While threats of any kind, especially to an FBI agent, do and absolutely should carry negative repercussions, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the FBI did their fair share of threatening lives. In 2011, they ousted Brown and his mother’s addresses while he and Anonymous — a loose network of “hacktivists” — were in the midst of challenging the Zetas, a dangerous and ruthless Mexican drug cartel.
An eye for an eye?
The potential for 105 years in prison, though a “worst case scenario” number, isn’t your everyday sentence. The charges are lengthy and appear to be shocking on purpose: It’s argued that Brown’s bleak future behind bars is a message from the government warning any current and future muckrakers to watch what they share.
This is a scary look into what could become of the law and our First Amendment rights. Exiled former CIA employee and NSA contractor Edward Snowden, along with many others, are on Brown’s side, for obvious reasons.
An independent website encouraging donations for Brown’s legal defense has gone live, and not shockingly, the FBI has requested the assets be frozen for fear of Brown getting a just defense. The inquiry was thrown out by the judge.
Journalists have been and will always fight to inform the masses on all counts. It’s been said the job of the muckraking journalist is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the calm.”
Some things may be better left unsaid, but criminal activity isn’t one of them.
Reach the columnist at haley.tonetti@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @haleytonetti.
