Freedom of (Some) Speech

It was recently announced that Kevin Sites, freelance war videographer, will be awarded a Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism. Editor & Publisher covered the award announcement by saying:

Kevin Sites, a freelance photojournalist for NBC, will be awarded the 2005 Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism on May 12 for his decision-making process after he witnessed and taped a U.S. Marine killing an unarmed Iraqi man in a mosque.

Sites decided to share the tape with the military, then he worked with NBC to create a "well-nuanced story that aired 48 hours after the incident," according to the Payne announcement. Since he was working as a pool photojournalist at the time, Sites shared the tape with the other news organizations in the pool.

When Sites was criticized after other outlets used the footage, he answered the critics and explained his decisions in detail on his Weblog, www.kevinsites.net.

In response, one of my favorite blogs weighed in by calling Sites a traitor, while another was surprisingly reserved, though his comments section made up for it. These blogs, of course, were hardly the only ones with this general viewpoint.

From both legal and ethical standpoints, calling Kevin Sites a traitor is ignorant. Not stupid, mind you, but ignorant of the law. It isn't a matter of "I think" or "in my opinion," they are quite simply, technically, wrong in calling Kevin Sites a traitor.

One cites Article III, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (his bold. --C.Y)

Kevin Sites shot a video of real events, unedited, and undoctored, and even ran it by the U.S. military before release. That is not treason. Furthermore, the assinine "logic" of some people that "well, he knew if could be twisted against us, so he's guilty" would not only stifle the First Amendment, but completely eviscerate it to a totalitarian extent. These people don't support the freedom of speech, just the freedom of some speech, that of which they personally approve.

I'll tell you what, my friends: go ahead and start a movement to prosecute Sites for your understanding of treason. You will of course also charge the journalists and producers, writers and editors who furthered this travesty by mentioning it in network broadcasts, cable news shows, and in national, regional, and local newspapers. I won't personally miss Olbermann, Dowd, or Krugman much, but I will miss Hannity, Krauthammer, and Will.

While you are at it, of course, you'll also have to charge the career Marine officers who released the tape for publication. I think that is a pretty short chain of command, just a few PR officers and maybe a general or two. Probably only a dozen or so all told. As active duty military, they will of course face the possibility of execution for their treason. Do they still use firing squads at Leavenworth, or does the military now allow lethal injections for enemies of democracy?

Nothing like the idea of putting a Few Good Men to death to underscore your shaky understanding of the Constitution, right guys?

Guys?

There are higher allegiences more important than the United States, and that if you honor these higher ideals, the best interests of the country are served as a natural consequence.

I'm sorry, but we disagree on this one.